Talk:Martin Luther and antisemitism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Luther and Antisemitism

This discussion has been archived on a separate page: talk:Martin Luther/Luther and Antisemitism Where it says the Lutheran Church has repudidated Luther's anti-Semitism, it needs to indicate which Lutheran church. There are several denominations in the U.S. alone that are Lutheran, and certainly there are large Lutheran churches in Europe.

Can someone help me find the above referenced archive? Thank you in advance for your assistance. Doright 22:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, this is a redirect pointing here. It refers to old discussions that I am now moving into Archive 1. Please add new topics at the bottom. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

---

2005

Fellow Wikipedians, we need to get the point across that Luther was not an antiSemite but his position was antiJudaic. There is a difference. Perhaps if those who like to vilify him today would have seen the manner that his Jewish opponents lampooned and libeled Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary they would see those opponents as antiGermanic when they were expressing their religious convictions. This is a religious not an ethnic or a racial issue. I believe that the image of the title page of Luther's work on the Jews does not need to be displayed in this article. I join my 21st Century collegues in condemning this document as something that can be interpreted as antiSeminitism. "The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones" --Julius Caesar, Act 3, Wm. Shakespeare. --drboisclair 23:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the edits. Perhaps after restoring the section needs to be expanded or better explained. It is wrong to say that only Dachau was anti-Semitism but what Luther advocated was merely Anti-Judaism. His quote below is clearly antisemitic and what he wrote others followed with actions. Anti-Judaism is anti-Semitism, please read the definition of the term (and note the spelling). Unfortunately, human history is full of uncomfortable and violent events but whitewashing is not the way for reconciliation.

First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly - and I myself was unaware of it - will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. (...remainder omitted)

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. (...remainder omitted)

Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let they stay at home. (...remainder omitted).

Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God's blessing in a good and worthy cause.

Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3[:19]}. For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants. Source: [1] (The highlights are mine)←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

We all know what followed. Lest we forget. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The editing was appropriate: the lengthly material was disproportionate for the article. This topic arises from time to time, and has its own special talk page, to which this discussion should be moved. (Also, there is a difference between antisemitism and antijudaism: the arabs, too, are semites).--StanZegel (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

That is an inactive archive last edited in 2003. This is the article's talk page. Of course everyone is entitled to their POV, but simply saying "The editing was appropriate" seems like an attempt to sweep unconfortable facts under the rug. I think that instead of original research and POV, we should provide the opinions of reputable scholars on the issue. Here is one paper: [2], more can be easliy found. As to antisemitism and the Arabs: a common mistake, please read Anti-Semitism#Etymology and usage. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

"The editing was appropriate" is completely justified in opposing an overemphasis on this matter in this article. This article needs to be condensed. It is my considered opinion that this section should be further reduced. Against the Jews and Their Lies is an unfortunate mistake of an old and sick man, and as a Luther scholar I would also maintain that Luther was not anti-Semitic but anti-Judaic. This is a valid contention. That is my POV as you have given yours, Mr. Humus sapiens, with all due respect. drboisclair 11:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps to give a full picture we should append to the "Talmud" article in Wikipedia some of the execrations of Christ and the Virgin Mary. They are certainly Antichristian or might we say AntiGentilic? The entire paragraph should be removed and a placed in a special article like Martin Luther and anti-Semitism. I guess the exclaimers are not enough. drboisclair 09:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Good Luther quote courtesy, Mr. Zegel: "When we are inclined to boast of our position [as Christians] we should remember that we are but Gentiles, while the Jews are of the lineage of Christ. We are aliens and in-laws; they are blood relatives, cousins, and brothers of our Lord. Therefore, if one is to boast of flesh and blood the Jews are actually nearer to Christ than we are." Martin Luther, That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew, Luther's Works, American Edition (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1962), Volume 45, Page 201. Submitted to this page by drboisclair 11:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

That is a nice quote, unfortunately only 20 years after the tractate you quote, he wrote the pamphlet I quote, wih his 8-point plan (see quote above and [3]). Again, anti-Judaism is anti-Semitism, there is no way around it. I am OK with stating that his was religious not racial. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that is objective of you to make this point of view, and one may have to be careful not to dissociate Anti-Judaism from Anti-Semitism too strongly because Luther's work has been used by those who perpetrated the Holocaust. The German people to this day feel it as a disgrace. As a Lutheran Christian I would promote my religion without degrading another's, and I am committed to opposing Anti-Semitism, which is indefensible. drboisclair 11:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm for keeping the direct quotations from On the Jews and Their Lies out for two reasons:

1 -- Encyclopia articles are not books. They need to be relatively compact and extensive quotes should be well documented and put in wikiquote. Please note that other extensive quotations have been removed from this article as well.

2 -- The only translation of On the Jews.. is from a copyrighted source. The publisher has objected to the use of their material on the internet without permission. A sentence or two, fully cited, is the most that should be allowed.

On the subject itself, the last statement of Luther on the Jews was in his final sermon and is as follows: "We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord" (Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p. 195).

So, what should be in our article? We should mention that Luther said these sharp things and many other such things. Luther had a horrible temper, which he freely admitted and regretted. He was althogether unused to the speed and distance his words would travel in the age in which printing was a new technology. He wished publically and often that most of his works would be burned and forgotten. It's not just the Jews that he railed against. His comments on the Pope and Islam are far worse. (one of his hymns says, "kill, stab and murder Pope and Turk" if memory serves) He had harsh words for everyone at one time or other, including himself. Only his wife and princes seem to escape. We should be up front with this dark side of the reformer.

On the other hand, Luther's personal behavior towards others, including Jews and personal enemies was quite different. When the opportunity arose, he pleaded leniency for individuals, gave them sanctuary in his own home and other acts of kindness. I'd have to look it up, but I remember this including the children of a Jewish official.

So, let's cover the complex matter in a few, compact paragraphs. After all, if we really want to lay out the case in full, we can open a new article for it and link to it. --CTSWyneken 12:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Stan's additions help to restore balance in the article. Perhaps the last thing that Luther stated that you have just quoted should be inserted into the article. drboisclair 12:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Balance is a great thing, but it's not achieved by whitewashing or POV. To begin with, a phrase claiming that Luther was "disappointed that the Jews had not yet seen the religious light" can not possibly be NPOV - he was dissapointed that they hadn't converted to Christianity (his version, of course). Wikipedia should not be describing conversion to another faith as "seeing the religious light." Next, Wikipedia should never dogmatically tell people that they should "note" something, particularly an opinion (for example, that Luther's writings were anti-Judaic, not anti-Semitic). There are plenty of sources which consider his writing to be simply anti-Semitic, and WP:NPOV demands that we state opinions as opinions, and cite those who make the argument. As well, I've added some necessary context to Luther's words, quoted other uses of them, and, in areas where I felt Luther was being misrepresented, I've simply inserted direct quotes from the work rather than paraphrases. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, your emendations of the two disavowals of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America are helpful and good. Your emendation should be discussed, so I post here what you emended the article to be before discussion. I have addressed the POV issues on a smaller scale by dealing with the "religious light" and the POV about Anti-Semitism and Anti-Judaism. It is POV to say that it was Anti-Semitism absolutely and not Anti-Judaic. Your major emendation I post for discussion and possible inclusion, although I oppose inclusion:

--Twenty years later, after his overtures to Jews failed to convince Jewish people to adopt Christianity, in his On the Jews and Their Lies (a work which has been described as "a notorious Antisemitic document"[4]), he views this attribute in quite a different light. He states "There is one thing about which they boast and pride themselves beyond measure, and that is their descent from the foremost people on earth, from Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, and from the twelve patriarchs, and thus from the holy people of Israel." He quotes the words of Jesus in Matthew 12:34, where Jesus called the Jewish religious leaders (Pharisees) of his day "a brood of vipers and children of the devil", and attributes this characteristic to all Jews. In the book, written three years before his death, he describes the Jews as (among other things) "miserable, blind, and senseless", "truly stupid fools", "thieves and robbers", "lazy rogues", "daily murderers", and "vermin", likens them to "gangrene", and recommends that Jewish synagogues and schools be burned, their homes destroyed, their writings be confiscated, their rabbis be forbidden to teach, their travel be restricted, that lending money be outlawed for them and that they be forced to earn their wages in farming. Finally, Luther advised "[i]f we wish to wash our hands of the Jews' blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country" and "we must drive them out like mad dogs."--

I think we need to explore the possibility of relegating this entire explosive topic to the special Wikipedia article Luther and Anti-Semitism. I oppose the inclusion of the above for two reasons 1) it is too long for inclusion in this article, and 2) it places too much weight on this issue. The author cannot deny that he/she has a definite bias. drboisclair 18:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Fellow editor, Jayjg, if we paraphrase accurately, isn't that acceptible? When we place an over emphasis on this reprehensible work by Luther are we not only presenting one side? Luther was an old sick man who was reacting to Jews at his time vilifying Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary. Luther falls into the disadvantage of being more famous than others. His blemishes stand out alone, and those of his vicious opponents have disappeared. I agree that we need to be as objective as we can, and I appreciate your emendations in part; however, it also betrays POV in a negative manner against Luther to weight it as you have in the above paragraph. Wouldn't it be fair to try to present the facts in Luther's article in a light that at least is slightly on the positive side. If we have a special Martin Luther and Anti-Semitism article, then we can lay it on as hard as we can. We need to be in dialogue on this matter. You will see that we may find common ground. Respectfully, drboisclair 19:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I strongly object to your reversions. The entire work vilifies and excoriates Jews, yet the current version indicates little more than it makes some nasty recommendations regarding Jews. Your paragraph simply does not capture the true flavour of the work, which is filled unpleasant statements about Jews. Furthermore, your paraphrases are completly inaccurate - the way to get around paraphrase issues is to simply quote the author. Next, you insert positive things he says about the Jews being Israel 20 years earlier, yet delete quite opposite comments he makes 20 years later. In addition, he doesn't just refer to Jewish leaders as "vipers", but all Jews, several times in the work. Finally, you claim "many historians" say something when you have examples of only one doing so. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you making these emendations as an administrator? or do we have the right to dispute them? Perhaps we can revert to the article as it was last week to avoid this editing conflict. BTW, have you read the work in the original German so that you can make definite statements as to what it does and does not say? I am a Luther scholar myself, and I have found that there are translation issues involved in this document as in others. Besides as CTSWyneken has stated we are hampered by lack of permission to quote extensively from The American Edition. The Humanitas external link is added with its derogatory caption as well as the Bainton quote. Does that suffice? drboisclair 19:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod comment: "While The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod holds Martin Luther in high esteem for his bold proclamation and clear articulation of the teachings of Scripture, it deeply regrets and deplores statements made by Luther which express a negative and hostile attitude toward the Jews. In light of the many positive and caring statements concerning the Jews made by Luther throughout his lifetime, it would not be fair on the basis of these few regrettable (and uncharacteristic) negative statements, to characterize the reformer as "a rabid anti-Semite." The LCMS, however, does not seek to "excuse" these statements of Luther, but denounces them (without denouncing Luther's theology). In 1983, the Synod adopted an official resolution addressing these statements of Luther and making clear its own position on anti-Semitism." drboisclair 20:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I hope we are mature enough to avoid religious wars here, so please no whitewash on one hand and derogatory generalizations (I ignored some above by now) on the other. Ad hominem are unacceptable, assume good faith. IMHO, the section in question, as any other, should contain NPOV (that doesn't mean it will be necessarily neutral) encyclopedic information. As it stands now it's completely unacceptable. Even the title is wrong: he didn't go into intricacies of Judaism and his problems were not with Judaism per se, all he wanted from Jews was to convert and advocated violence if they refuse. That is anti-Semitism. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 21:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

IMHO the present emendation makes the article too long. Why not be willing to revert it to the way it was a week ago? This was begun this morning. Perhaps we should delete it altogether and put it in a new article. drboisclair 21:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I have restored an earlier version of the article, and have added a mention of Westerholm's book. There are three comments by drboisclair that I would like to comment on.

Fellow Wikipedians, we need to get the point across that Luther was not an antiSemite but his position was antiJudaic.

drboisclair, I urge you to read our Wikipedia: Neutral point of view and Wikipedia: No original research policies carefully. It is not your place, or my place, or any Wikipedian's place, to decide whether Luther was anti-Semitic or anti-Judaic. Our personal points of view do not belong in any article. We are, however, to represent the different, existing views that have been expressed in verifiable sources. SOme say Luther was anti-Semtiic: this view must be represented. Others say he was anti-Judaisc: this too must be represented. Perhaps some have argued that he was both. In any event, all views that come from verifiable sources should be represented, with the sources provided.

Fellow editor, Jayjg, if we paraphrase accurately, isn't that acceptible?

I believe that when dealing with controversial topics, attempts to paraphrase are often too vulnerable to charges of violating NPOV or NOR. One crucial fact about Wikipedia is that it is not a paper encyclopedia. We can present more information than paper encyclopedias. I fail to see why, in an article on Martin Luther, my words, Jayjg's words, or your words, would be better than Martin luther's own words.

Luther was an old sick man who was reacting to Jews at his time vilifying Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary.

Wow. I have two problems with this. First, what is your source? Who claims this (or, are you violating NPOV and NOR)? If someone has made this claim in a verifiable source, then put it in, with the source. However, I think you are doing Luther an injustice, and my source is a Lutheran theologian, Stephen Westerholm, who not only accept that much of what Luther wrote was anti-Semitic, but who refuses to reject those writings as the unreliable product of a sick old mind; on the contrary, Westerholm salvages from what we today find offensive points that Luther was making — values he was asserting — that are still of value (to Lutherans, I mean) today. To dismiss Luther's writings as that of a sick old man is not strangely unfair to Luther: you want to get him off the hook of anti-Semitism, so you assassinate his character in a different way. For Westerholm, you are in the process throwing the baby (important theological values...) out with the bathwater (...expressed in anti-Semitic language). Second, what on earth do you mean, "Jews at his time vilifying Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary?" What Jews were villifying Jesus and Mary? To my knowledge, the only thing the Jews were "guilty" of was not converting to Christianity. Now, if you think nont converting to Christianity is tantamount to vilifying Jesus and Mary — if you think someone's denial of Jesus as Lord and Savior invites anti-Semitism — you are simply reproducing the logic that is at the very heart of Christian anti-Semitism. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

PS drboisclair, I think you misunderstand what the word emendation means, you might want to use a different word. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I just rolled back one of drboisclair deletions. Please note, that I did not roll back his other edit. I hope he sees this as evidence of my open mind. I am willing to accept drboisclair's deletion of the claim that Martin Luther was expressing a well-established medieval anti-Semitism, but not for drboisclair's reasons, which reflect an ignorance of our policies. I accept this deletion made by drboisclair because he deleted material that was not sourced and thus seemed to violate our NOR policy. The deletions I did roll back were of quotes of Luther and an account of Westerholm's analysis of Luther's writings. It is wrong to delete these because they do not violate NPOV or NOR. They are properly sourced content and it is wrong to delete them. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the intent, I think drboisclair still misunderstand's our policies. He just deleted a quote from Luther — including that quote, if it comes from a non-controversial source (i.e. all Luther scholars agree he wrote it), then including it in our article does not violate our NPOV policy. I also do not see how the Bainton quote violates our policy. My only objections to the Bainton quote are this: the part about wishing Luther had died is gratuitous — it belongs in an article on Lutheranism, but not Luther. His claim that Luther was antiJudaism and not anti-Semitic is however germaine, and since it is properly sourced it complies with our policies — but it would be more valuable if in addition to that quote we were provided with Bainton's reasoning for interpreting Luther's words in this way. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The On the Jews and Their Lies is indefensible. Why should we seek to mitigate it by quoting what Luther said in February, 1546? At least I do not wish to be accused of being in violation of any POV policy. I was wrong in including it without the consent of my collegue CTSWyneken, so I wish it to be deleted. Besides, it stands above in his section. I apologize for starting this I will not edit this paragraph anymore. Job 42:6 drboisclair 22:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Like Jonah, you run away from second chances, and would rather be a harsh judge — of Luther and of yourself. It does not matter whether On the Jews and their lies is indefensible or not. Luthor wrote it and the article must acknowledge that. But there are different interpretations of why he wrote it, and as long as they are made by credible scholars and can be properly sourced, it is quite proper to include those interpretations. Moreover, Luther wrote other things (e.g. the part about loving Jews, although — and this is my own bias now — in that odd Christian notion of love which revolves around wanting everyone to be like them. Be that as it may, he wrote it, and so there is nothing wrong with putting it in this article. drboisclair, please try to "get" this: Wikipedia is not the place for haigiography ... but neither is it the place for villification. It is the place for accurate, NPOV articles based on verifiable sources. Period. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur. The pursuit of knowledge is paramount to the scholar. Thank you for your concern. I would not be adverse to your readding the material as far as I am concerned; however, as you say, it should be reserved for the section on Lutheranism or maybe one on Martin Luther and Judaism. I agree that if one adds something to the article that is properly referenced, it should be allowed to stand; and all of us should have the courtesy to work with valid material that our fellow editors have contributed. drboisclair 22:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Friends: No one has addressed the copyright issue here. The rightholder does not want its work used. We must be careful not to overuse it. By linking to the text online, present there against the wishes of the copyright holder, we are being unethical by aiding and abetting the violation of US Law. I know this because I have had a conversation with the holder on previous occaisons.

Second, I agree that the work should be discussed. While the work was completely ignored until Hitler used it for his evil purposes, this fact deserves mention. But I believe it takes up altogether too much space here. It has the effect of outweighing the rest of Luther's contributions and not giving serious enough attention to his bitter exchanges with others.

For example, the Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia (and Encarta, which seems to reproduce it) devotes two sentences out of a three page article on Luther to this subject. As far as I can tell on a fast scan of the venerable Schaaf-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge [[5]] the matter is not taken up at all. If you would like, I can check others at work tomorrow. (I work in a Lutheran Seminary Library)

My point is this: a paragraph or two, describing the work and its negative impact, along with the Twentieth Century views of its significance is more than enough in service of the truth. --CTSWyneken 02:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree: IMHO it is very important subject, and I added a one-line quote supporting this opinion, and also WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. As a compromise, I did not change the section title and only linked the bookcover image, without showing it in the article. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Please note in the second paragraph of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia says:

There is a kind of feasible limit for individual article sizes that depends on page download size for our dialup readers and readability considerations for everybody (see Wikipedia:article size). After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see Wikipedia:Summary style). But for topics that are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles, the fact that Wikipedia is not paper allows us to give more thorough treatments, include many relevant links, be more timely, etc.

It links to the article size page which says:

However, do note that readers may tire of reading a page in excess of 20-30 KB of readable prose...Thus the 32KB recommendation is considered to have stylistic value in many cases; if an article is significantly longer than that, then sections probably should eventually be summarised and the detail moved to other articles (see Wikipedia:Summary style). For most long pages division into sections is natural anyway; even if there is no "natural" way to split a long list or table, it should be done anyway, to allow section editing.

Our article is now 54kb long. While Luther is important enough to go longer than the usual 20-30kb length, these warnings are there for a reason. We ought to respect it enough to keep it concise. This topic is controversial enough that we will not be able to do it, if we cover everything everyone wants to say about it here. Then there is the copyright issue, which, for me as a librarian trumps it all. I respect your right to want to take up this issue at length, although why Luther receives this concern while the articles of his major contemporaries do not mention their worse anti-Judaiac sentiments is something I do not understand.

So, I still strongly recommend we reduce the size of this section considerably and take the detail over to its own topic. --CTSWyneken 12:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I have reduced this to a more appropriate length, using the words of Luther himself and the events of his own times. What others did elsewhere in other times belongs in a other articles. This article is about Luther and his life and works. This section is far longer, in context, than his more important actions. Its importantce is about 1/3 that of his Large Cathecism, and we should be concentrating on getting these things into proportion and adding sections on things like that, his mother's correct name, etc. before digging into such detail on a relatively minor aspect of his work. --StanZegel (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism implies prejudice against more ethnic groups

As pointed out by other editors Anti-Semitism comprises prejudice not only against Jewish people but also against other "Semites" like the Arabs. IMHO, drboisclair 17:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

No, this is a mistake. The meaning of the word anti-Semitism cannot be inferred from its components (there are no such thing as "Semitic people," only "Semitic languages" and we all agree that anti-Semitism is not a hatred of Semitic languages), but rather from how the person who coined it defined it, and how people have used it sence. And they have used it to mean "hatred of the Jewish race." There happen to be Arab anti-Semites, and anti-Semites who have no hatred towards Arabs, for example. Of course it is quite possible for someone to be both an anti-Semite and a racist hater of Arabs. But then calling that person an "anti-Semite" would be inadequate: you would have to say "that man is a racist: besides being anti-Semitic, he also hates Arabs." Slrubenstein | Talk 18:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. By saying that there are no "Semitic people" does one leave the Biblical division of Semitic, Hamitic, and Japhetic (Genesis 10)? In asking this I am not advocating a return to such a reckoning; however, I do hold to the historical accuracy of the Bible. I accept that "Anti-Semitism" refers to prejudice and hatred of the Jewish people: is that accurate? drboisclair 19:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Your last sentence is accurate. As for your second and third sentences: it is perfectly legitimate for articles on Biblical topics (this is not really one of them) to make it clear that one of many points of view is that all human beings are descended from Adam and Eve, who were created by God, or were descended from Noah, a descendent of Adam and Eve. But this must always be presented as a point of view. Yes, a POV held by many people for a long time &mdah; although I would add that thee is no proof that the author's of the Bible believed this. In any event, one POV among many. It is equally important in such discussions to acknowledge othe majore and relevant points of view, e.g. the one that the Bible is not a historical document but a work of literature, or the one that the Bible is a fraud, or whatever. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, the phrase It has been argued that his sentiments are anti-Judaic rather than anti-Semitic, i.e. they do not stem from a racial or ethnic negative bias but a religious position. has 2 problems: 1) it doesn't reflect our mutual understanding that his position was indeed anti-Semitic based on religious rather than racial grounds, and 2) weasel wording "It has been argued that..." - by whom? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 21:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I wrote those words, and I vacate them as error. I believe that On the Jews and Their Lies is Anti-Semitic. If it were Anti-Judaic, it would not propose a systematic program to suppress Jews. "It has been argued by ..." the authors of The Forum Letter who wanted to mitigate On the Jews and Their Lies. Richard John Neuhaus and Roland Bainton are the only two that I know of who have put forward this argument. Bainton, indirectly, in that he said that the intent was not racial/ethnic prejudice but religious zeal. They argued this way in good faith because from Luther's other works they assumed that Luther did not have the same motivation of say, an Adolf Hitler. As the author of this sentence I believe that it should be stricken from this article. This seems to be the state of things: 1. Luther believed that the Jews did not have the opportunity to become Christians because they were persecuted by Western medieval cultures and the church, 2. The Jews did not know what Luther believed to be the pure Gospel because it had been obscured for so long by the papacy, 3. Luther's reformatory discovery was novel to his time and, in his opinion, afforded the Jews the opportunity to be converted to Christianity, 4. they did not convert and he, Luther, alleges that some of them slandered Christ and the Virgin Mary, so 5. he wrote On the Jews and Their Lies. If you read the introduction to Luther's Small Catechism you will find that Luther is somewhat harsh on catechumens who refuse to learn the catechism: "If any refuse to receive your instructions, tell them that they deny Christ and are no Christians. They should not be admitted to the sacrament, be accepted as sponsors in Baptism, or be allowed to participate in any Christian privileges. On the contrary, they should be turned over to the pope and his officials, and even to the devil himself. In addition, parents and employers should refuse to furnish them with food and drink and should notify them that the prince is disposed to banish such rude people from his land." This is amplified in On the Jews and Their Lies. Does this shed some light? Respectfully submitted by drboisclair 01:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Change made in Anti-Judaism/Anti-Semitism supposed distinction

Since the paragraph mentioned in the above section was written by me in the Martin Luther article, I have taken the liberty to modify it. I think that one should not use this putative distinction to mitigate the reprehensible character of On the Jews and Their Lies. I did not intend for this paragraph to be inserted in this new article; however, if POV issues are taken care of and assertions are supported by evidence, then it may elicit thought and discussion. drboisclair 02:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the Kittelson reference as another who shared Bainton's view on Luther an Anti-Semitism. There may be others who might share this theory. drboisclair 20:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggest we add something on the context of the times

First, let me say that I abhor Luther's angry, hateful words on the Jews (for that matter, on the Pope, Anabaptists, Turks, etc.) and think they should never have been said. On the other hand, they are not suprising in an era that burned heretics at the stake, that sponsored the Spanish Inquisition and subjugation of the New World, in which Aztecs sacraficed the still-beating hearts of enemies on the altars of their gods, etc. Luther transcended his age in so many ways, you would hope he would have transcended it in this matter, but he did not.

I think we need to set the context. Does anyone object?

--CTSWyneken 12:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem here. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 12:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

What kind of context are you referring to? Don't forget, this is a sub-article of Martin Luther, which gives plenty of context. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't object to mentioning context in some way. But it should be relatively brief, and not a case of hugging every example of his antisemitism with a long apologia about how things were so different at the time. Babajobu 17:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't put in more than a few paragraphs. The idea is to bring in the violent and anti-semitic time in which Luther lived.

--CTSWyneken 02:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. Babajobu 02:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

CTSWyneken, don't forget to add citations, or someone will end up removing it. Babajobu 13:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyright status of On the Jews and Their Lies

How could this work still be in copyright, exactly? If it's not, let's put the link back up. Babajobu 16:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The translation is copyrighted in The American Edition of Luther's Works. The posting of it online in an article may not have been done so after proper permission had been granted. Perhaps the website that posted this translation should apply for permission from Augsburg Fortress press, the owner of the copyright drboisclair 16:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't copyright issues need to be worked out by the proprietor of the given site and the owner of the copyright? It doesn't seem reasonable for us to examine the copyright status of each site we link to. That's not possible, really, and I can't imagine that it is legally required of us. Babajobu 16:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, however, if permission has not been secured, the argument runs that you do not want to contribute by linking to that page. Yes, Wikipedia, does not need to address this. The argument is that Wikipedia does not want to get into trouble for linking to a page that has not obtained permission. As you know with the "Project Gutenberg" Wikipedia cannot link directly to the document. drboisclair 17:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know this about Project Gutenberg...and this is because we don't trust their content's copyright status? Or because they want us linking to their site, and not directly to their files? So then how do we decide whether or not to link to any other site? Case-by-case basis, if an editor has doubts about copyright status, then they kill the link? Doesn't seem practical to me, and I still have a hard time believing we would "get in trouble" for linking to a site that ended up having copyright issues. This is for their lawyers to work out...no one could really expect us to hire lawyers to examine all of our external links. Babajobu 17:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia does this with Project Gutenberg because of the cooperative relationship with them and at PG's request. My guess is that PG may not always offer the texts online in full as they are. As far as copyright is concerned PG is overly careful, and never violates copyright law--at least not as far as they know. I have linked to other sites on the internet in articles that I have written; however, more research needs to be done. Maybe we need to review Wikipedia's policy on linking to copyrighted material. drboisclair 18:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I just asked about this in the wikipedia IRC channel. User:Smoddy says that this issue was addressed on the Wikipedia mailing list, and they basically came to your conclusion of "better safe than sorry". So the link stays off. We can add an offline reference to the book. I'll do that. Babajobu 18:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

This is good. One might want to follow the internal link On the Jews and Their Lies in order to tell more about the work. drboisclair 19:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

That was the other suggestion, that we write a stub (or article) on On the Jews and Their Lies. I'm not going to be able to do either that or a ref right now, you're welcome to give em a crack, if not I'll try later. Regards, Babajobu 19:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like you have worked through the issue. For me, this is an ethical issue. I've asked Augsburg Fortress and they very much don't want the work online. If they'd allow it, the work as destible as it is would be in Project Wittenberg. We should not be in the business of encouraging unethical behavior. And this site is worse, in that it does not even give the source of the text.

We can, of course, quote, but we need to be conservative with this. How much you can quote is legally untested. Please do be sure to cite the page numbers and full author, title, etc.

--CTSWyneken 02:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Fordham University claims to have received permission to post the translation (see bottom of page at their website) at the Medieval Sourcebook. I don't see that there would be a problem linking to their site. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Adjustments to Main Article's Summary of this article

I've adjusted the language in the main article to improve flow. The only thing someone might object to is the removal of the Johnson quote. I believe the substance of it is in the text and the citation provides the verification that someone respected view things this way. I have no objection to further tweaks, nor, if others feel the actual quote contributes something, to restoring it. --CTSWyneken 12:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Some adjustments made this morning to make the article easier to read. --CTSWyneken 11:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Will be copy-pasting in some context from a document we produced here. I'll comment it out until I can adjust it to fit wikipedia and our article. --CTSWyneken 11:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal of "Controversy" and "Controversial"

It has been proven to me that the idea that there is much controversy over Luther and Antisemitism is not true in the wider world of academia. I have taken the liberty of removing this idea from the two Luther articles this one and Martin Luther. I would invite inspection and modification as needed. Humbly submitted by the undersigned. --drboisclair 17:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it has been proven, as this article amply attests. I'm at a loss as to why to person objecting to the word controversial on the Martin Luther (talk) page does not think so. He is right that for most of the past almost five hundred years the matter was not mentioned, much less controversial, it has been very controversial for the last 50-60 years due to the abuse of the book by the Nazis to support their evil program. I will not, however, fight an edit war over the subject. This leaves us, however, with a problem. The introduction is now very stark and abrupt. It needs some kind of transition statement to smooth things out rhetorically. Since my attempt has been rejected, who will try this?

--CTSWyneken 11:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Problematic passage

"Luther himself was at one time or another during his life hostile towards just about everyone, including his own parishioners, good friends, allies, opponents and, himself. His most obvious and self-acknowledged flaw was his temper. He often berated himself for this, even in print. While we should not excuse or emulate the extreme nature of Luther's polemical language, it was part of the age in which he lived."

The first half of this passage, through "even in print", is totally irrelevant to the topic of Luther's anti-Semitism. The last sentence is totally unencyclopedic and has no place in this article. An encyclopedia article should not use the word "we" to refer to itself and the reader as if it were an 19th century instructional manual for children. And "part of the age in which he lived" is both POV and a cliched, rather meaningless phrase. The fact is that many people in Luther's age (including his colleague Philipp Melanchthon managed to promote their particular religious views without engaging in the vitriolic anti-Semitism that characterized much of Luther's work. --Briangotts 15:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to comment on this last statement: "...engaging in the vitriolic anti-Semitism that characterized much of Luther's work." While I agree that On the Jews and Their Lies is antisemitic in that it proposes a pogrom against the Jews. I take great exception to the charge Mr. Briangotts makes against Luther's work. I have a graduate masters degree in Lutheran theology, and I am fairly well-read in Luther. It is a distortion and a falsehood for anyone to say that much of his work is antisemitic. You may know something of Luther, but you are demonstrating an extreme measure of uninformed POV. drboisclair 14:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. I meant to get back to this, but was delayed. The whole thing is nothing more than an apologetic excusing Luther's actions - in fact, WP:NOR. If an apologist for Luther who makes these arguments can be found, then bring him forward and quote him, but this kind of original research cannot stand. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Briangotts's removal of "While one should not excuse or emulate the extreme nature of Luther's polemical language according to the views of contemporary scholarship, it was part of the age in which he lived." I was a bit uncomfortable with that bit when I first saw it. While I'm sure most of us would agree that one shouldn't excuse or emulate Luther's polemical language, it's still introducing a POV to say that we shouldn't. It's also adopting a particular tone of authority to tell the reader what he or she shouldn't do. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

And it's also not particularly accurate one way or another. Luther was particularly nasty, even given the nasty tenor of the times. He was a key spokesman for the nastiness. He even invented his own nastiness. His was part of the age in which he lived; so what? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

What about the rest of the passage? It sounds silly, is irrelevant and out of place. Briangotts 23:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the passage is silly, irrelevant, and out of place. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I used the following relevant quote in Talk:Martin Luther#Martin Luther and the Jews - the summary needs rework:

Luther's biographer Richard Marius comments on this perception of Auden and others who laid the Nazi pathology at Luther's feet: "Although the Jews for him were only one among many enemies he castigated with equal fervor, although he did not sink to the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition against Jews, and although he was certainly not to blame for Adolf Hitler, Luther's hatred of the Jews is a sad and dishonorable part of his legacy, and it is not a fringe issue. It lay at the center of his concept of religion. He saw in the Jews a continuing moral depravity he did not see in Catholics. He did not accuse papists of the crimes that he laid at the feet of Jews." (James Carroll, Constantine's Sword, p.426) The highlight is mine. This article needs rework too. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

While I'm not committed to the language of this passage, which was developed for another purpose, I wish that editors would show respect to author here. These are my words, and I, and quite a few others, do not find them silly at all. You are welcome to your opinion, but in this age, not to insult others, as Luther and his contempories did.

I'm willing to argue relevance and placement, though. The quote in Humus' post above is part of the reason why. In an article dedicated to understanding the man and the place of his horrid comments in the history of the relations between Christianity and the Jewish people, it is important to understand the context of those comments in his life. His violent rhetoric in general is a part of that picture. It gets at why he would say the things he said. --CTSWyneken 16:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but according to whom? If this is a defence of his statements regarding Jews, then it needs to come from some quotable source, not from you. Otherwise, it is a violation of the WP:NOR policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Far from original research, it is the common observation of quite a few scholars. With common observations, all you need do is check a few of the items in the bibliography and you'll see it asserted. In scholarly work, you need cite only when the information is unique or disputed. In this case, it is far from unique and, in the sources I've read, not at all disputed. The problem is similar to the "antisemitism" position. Which of dozens do you quote? If we must cite every statemnt, this little article may end up with eighty of them. Since I was asked to keep it short, I wanted to avoid quotations. If you'd like, I can do so, however. What is your pleasure? Short or cited? --CTSWyneken 15:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't some of us use more courtesy when we characterize what other registered users have written. I think that arrogance is out of place here. It is also POV to censor anything that might be said in Luther's favor. His On the Jews and Their Lies is antisemitic in my opinion, but it is grossly uninformed POV to state that "much of his work is antisemitic". Let us employ more adult courtesy and respect, Thank you. drboisclair 14:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The Error of Characterizing "Much" of Luther's Work as Antisemitic

I think that this matter deserves a separate caption. I think that we should set the matter straight that it is a mistake to generalize that much of Luther's work is antisemitic or that it contains antisemitism unless one would argue that promoting Christianity is antisemitic. Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies is antisemitic because of what it proposes; however, if antisemitism also involves the motivation of the author, then it is apparent that Luther's motive is not the same as that of vicious 20th Century antisemites. Luther labors under his historical celebrity in having much of what he wrote and said "preserved" for posterity. Unfortunately for him, the filth and garbage that his opponents wrote against him is either lost or conveniently hidden in out of print, obscure volumes gathering dust somewhere in Europe. Luther said that they could burn everything he wrote other than his De servo arbitrio and his catechisms. We are chastised to employ the best of our encyclopedic skill in composing articles. Avoiding generalizations as well as false generalizations is also in the best tradition of encyclopedic composition. drboisclair 13:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Request Luther's Words be Cited From its Print Source

Since the copyright holder of this translation of "On the Jews and Their Lies" have never given their permission to have the work on the internet (I asked to put it online), I suggest we cite the work directly. There is few enough words here to go beyond fair use, but it is good form to credit the source rather than an electronic version of perhaps questionable legality. --CTSWyneken 03:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I got it from the government of Austrailia web site. If you have any questions about it's legality, you may take it up with the United Nations or the government itself.

"THE JEWS AND THEIR LIES" OF THE UNKNOWABLE NAME AND THE GENERATIONS OF CHRIST (1543) Volume 47: "The Christian in Society" IV, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). pp 268-293 Archived on [30/11/2001] at the National Library of Austrailia from biblebelievers.org.au. Retrieved Dec 11, 2005 from http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/10528/20011130/www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm Keep up the good work! Doright 00:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! It sounds like the American Edition of Luther's Works. I will pursue it for neatness sake. A quick look at the website looks like it is an indirect reference to another web page. I doubt they are directly responsible for it. In any case, The amount of quotation here is likely within fair use guidelines and legal. The reason I'm so picky about this one is whole works of Luther have been placed online against the wishes of the publisher. THAT practice is illegal, or at least unethical. --CTSWyneken 11:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I have checked the physical reference; the excerpt is indeed from the American Edition of Luther's Works, v. 47:268. The treascription is in error, however. The translation, rather, reads this way: "What shall we Christians fo with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews?..." I will check also the German original, when time permits. --CTSWyneken 17:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Luther's German is the word volk or people. (WA 53:522) The word condemned is actually too nice: should be "damned."

--CTSWyneken 20:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Luther's Antisemitic Race Quote

User:StanZegel, please explain why you deleted my contribution [[6]]. If you doubt my edit, click on this link. [[7]] Doright 02:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Doright, I reverted it. Sorry I botched the edit summary. Let me explain the reason here. What he called them is not as important as other things (such as his 8-point program outlined later). Also, I don't think the name calling belongs in the intro: we don't want to lose our readers due to sudden increase of their blood pressure. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

On the subject of the quote, I must say that the meaning of the word "race" in the 16th century was not the same as in the late 19th-20th c. and it would be incorrect to use the word "racist" to describe ML. His antisemitism was not racial. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Humus sapiens, .” I would like to remind you that this page is a redirect from Martin Luther and Antisemitism and not a redirect from Martin Luther and Racism. I put in the quote to provide some balance and point out the absurdity of the weasel words, “While Luther's supporters are disheartened by Luther's harsh words towards the Jewish people and others, they argue that Luther's words were motivated by Judaism's rejection of Christianity rather than hatred of Jews as a race.”

Humus, please take this opportunity to explain specifically and concretely Luther’s notion of “Race.” Then explain why he uses the phrase, “race of Jews” instead of merely “Jews.” Don’t bother telling me about the racial theories of the 18th-21st centuries. It’s really unnecessary. BTW, you may find it helpful in producing your explanation of Luther's Race concept that he also said: "The Jews are blood-relations of our Lord; if it were proper to boast of flesh and blood, the Jews belong more to Christ than we.

I changed, “Martin Luther has been accused of Anti-Semitism, primarily in relation to his work On the Jews and their Lies. While Luther's supporters are disheartened by Luther's harsh words towards the Jewish people and others, they argue that Luther's words were motivated by Judaism's rejection of Christianity rather than hatred of Jews as a race,” to “Martin Luther has been accused of Anti-Semitism. In his 1543 work, On the Jews and their Lies, Luther asks, "What then shall we do with this damned, rejected race of Jews?. " While Luther's supporters are disheartened by Luther's harsh words towards the Jewish people and others, they argue that Luther's words were motivated by Judaism's rejection of Christianity rather than hatred of Jews as a race. This gives the reader a sense of WHY someone might accuse Luther of antisemitism in relation to his work On the Jews and their Lies. Regards Doright 11:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see the article race. Also please take a look at relevant previous discussions at this Talk page and Talk:Martin Luther. While many pieces of this article are OK, others are substandard, and will have to be reworked. The same goes for the summary in the main ML article. You are welcome to participate, as everyone else. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Humus Sapiens Thank you for welcoming my participation. However, you have completely failed to address the question that I that I asked you. Please try again. After all, you are the one that raised the issue of Luther’s usage of “race” as a rationale for reverting my contribution. Again, from above, ‘’please take this opportunity to explain specifically and concretely Luther’s notion of “Race.” Then explain why he uses the phrase, “race of Jews” instead of merely “Jews.” ‘’ Telling me to look the word race up in the encylopedia doesn’t cut it. Continued failure in this regard, will lead me to begin to question if you want to have a serious discussion or if you merely want to impose your will in controling the content of the article. Cordially yours, Doright 22:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to repeat Race#History of the term here. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Humus, You don't want to repeat? Repeat what? You have said exactly nothing. Your link is bogus. It does not "explain specifically and concretely Martin Luther’s notion of 'Race.'" Nor, does it state "why Luther uses the phrase, 'race of Jews' instead of merely 'Jews.'" In fact, the only Luther mentioned in your link is the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Again, you have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever in support of your excuse for reverting my edit. One is now left to question if you want to have a serious discussion or if you merely want to impose your will in controling the content of the article. I'm still waiting . . .Doright 01:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Meanings of the term in the 16th century included "wines with a characteristic flavour", "people with common occupation", and "generation". The meaning "tribe" or "nation" emerged in the 17th century. The modern meaning, "one of the major divisions of mankind", dates to the late 18th century..." - therefore calling him "racist" in the 21st century is wrong. Please next time Stay cool when the editing gets hot and assume good faith. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Humus adding additional non-sequitars and red herrings and now ad hominem innuendoes to your failure to answer the straightforward question related to your reverting of my edit, does not facilitate dialog. You say, "calling him "racist" in the 21st century is wrong." Well, Humus, my edit is here for everyone to see that I did not call him a racist. Now back to the question that you have failed to answer, in good faith, I'm sure, over and over and over again, After all, you are the one that raised the issue of Luther’s usage of “race” as a rationale for reverting my contribution. Again, and again and again and again, please take this opportunity to explain specifically and concretely Luther’s notion of “Race.” Then explain why he uses the phrase, “race of Jews” instead of merely “Jews.” Please this time answer the question. Alternatively, if you don't know the answer, just say so. Doright 02:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

1) I'm not going to react to that emotional outburst because you are a newcomer.

Yelling "Assume Good Faith" at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith. All I ever asked is for you to explain the reasoning for your actions. Up to this point you have failed to do so. Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions. Of course, there's a DIFFERENCE between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions. Refusing to coherently explain oneself is a bad action. Peppering your replies with various non sequitars, straw-men and red-herrings, plus ad hominem innuendos are also bad actions. Correcting a newly added sentence that you know to be wrong is also much better than simply deleting it. You have demonstated a bad habit of doing the later rather than the former. Also, This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Things which can cause the loss of good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, and edit warring. Humus, you may want to review assume good faith. You may also find helpful a review of Civility and Hanlon's Razor which are suggested related readings on the good faith page. Doright 06:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

2) What was the purpose of that quote?

Humus, strange that you ask that question since if you took a moment to read my replies to you I already told you and I qoute, "I put in the quote to provide some balance and point out the absurdity of the weasel words, “While Luther's supporters are disheartened by Luther's harsh words towards the Jewish people and others, they argue that Luther's words were motivated by Judaism's rejection of Christianity rather than hatred of Jews as a race.” Doright 06:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

3) ML uses “race of Jews” instead of merely “Jews” for the same reason that the word "race" meant "wines with a characteristic flavour" in the 16th century.

Your reply is odd. Is this it a riddle? You say it is "for the same reason." I do not understand. Please explicitly state what this "same reason" is. Doright 06:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

4) To continue this thread, you will have to prove that ML's notion of race was different from what it was common at the time. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I have rarely seen such a run of non sequitars, now you add begging the question to your list. I asked you what Luther's notion of race is. You failed to answer. Now you assert I have to show that it's different from what was common. Again, from above, ‘’please take this opportunity to explain specifically and concretely Luther’s notion of “Race." Doright 06:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I have checked the quotation against the printed translation. The online version misquotes its printed source. The source uses "people" not race. I followed the translation back to Luther's orginal German. He uses the word "volk." --CTSWyneken 23:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not appreciate the insult implied by calling my words: "Weasel Words" It is not helpful to engage in such. We have been struggling for months to find a good balance between viewpoints. I agree with Humus, we have a ways to go, especially on this article.While I'm not committed to this precise language, it is important to keep balance between the views involved. I also welcome having you join the discussion and the effort to find a way to discuss a difficult and emotional topic.

For starters, please cite this source. Which exact translation, by whom and when and on what page? Give this information and I can check it. --CTSWyneken 17:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

CTSWyneken, in an effort to keep the issues clear, I will respond to your request for sources in your section labeled, "Request Luther's Words be Cited From its Print Source." Until then, if you choose, you may assist by selecting your favorites from the link I provided Stan.

Thank you for honoring this request. This is an especially emotional issue for all sides, so accuracy, clarity and balance are important. --CTSWyneken 20:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Please understand that I used the term weasel word in the technical sense of the term and not the emotive. For example, the Wikipedia Style Guide says to avoid weasel words ( please read WP:WEASEL ). I agree with the style guide that it's a useful analytical concept and something to be avoided. If you find the term offensive, perhaps you can suggest an alternate one for the Style Guide to use. I'm sure your input will be welcomed. Please assume goodwill on my part and understand that I had no intent to insult you. I recognize and respect that you and perhaps others have a large emotional investment in this article. Yet, I hope that this will not unduly get in the way of constructive criticism and improvement.

I accept the clarification. The point I was making with the revert is that I wish you would discuss your proposals on the talk page before editing. It is important that we talk about these issues so that we all be together on it. --CTSWyneken 20:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

CTSWyneken, I think it may be helpful for you to review the concept of "good balance" (i.e., WP:NPOV ) and distinguish it from "weasel words" WP:WEASEL.

Perhaps you might suggest different wordings that summarize all sides of the issues above. I am always ready to consider fair rewording of the article. I just ask that we achieve consensus here first. --CTSWyneken 17:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Now then, let’s try to move forward. What do you identify as the views involved in my edit that you say we must "keep balance between," in order to justify the reverting of my edit? Respectfully, Doright 22:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

In all due respect, it would be faster if you would read the discussions on the talk page of the Martin Luther article and here. It will save a rehash of many paragraphs of explanation that have brought both viewpoints of Luther near to consensus. --CTSWyneken 02:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

In all due respect, vague generalities and hand waving produce nothing. The very specific question I asked is What do you identify as the views involved in my edit that you say we must "keep balance between," and that you used to justify reverting it? If you can not not even identify "the views involved" in my edit, no reasonable person can expect me to accept your comments as being anything but empty rhetoric. So, please try to actually answer the question. With all due regards Doright 01:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because you edited before speaking to those of us working on this article first. Even though you have a right to do this, I have a right not to accept this method. If this offended you, I apologize. When Stan then reverted it, you or someone else rereverted. I pushed it back to status quo so that a discussion might happen. (which it has) Now we are trying to fashion an article that all can agree with.

There are several reasons for rejecting your edits. The first is that the quote was mangled. (see my notes above) Second, the point behind an intro is to summarize the content of the article and "lead into" it. Third, since Luther also said many kind things about the Jews, NPOV would require an balancing quote from "That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew" for example. All of this would baloon the intro. Since the whole paragraph that you objected to has now been deleted and we have begun to work to fashion a new one, why not put aside this issue and turn to the work ahead? --CTSWyneken 17:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion from an Admin

Everybody who has not reviewed Wikipedia's NPOV policy, I suggest you take a one-hour break from writing on this topic (and talk page) and review it.

One thing you will see is how to handle controversies, when there are sides which take opposing Points Of View about a matter. Clearly some scholars or activists feel that Luther was anti-semitic on account of his remarks. His defenders - for whatever reason - feel that he was not anti-semitic.

There is no need for our article to indicate which side was right. Just gives the opinion of each side, and explain their reasoning as clearly as you can. Let the reader decide which side which POV is correct. Uncle Ed 01:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ed, you ask if "proposing a pogrom on Jews" is antisemitic. It is. It's surprising that you feel there are circumstances in which it might not be. It's surprising that you think this viewpoint requires "equal time" under NPOV policy rather than short dismissal as the viewpoint of an insignificant --vanishingly small-- number of people. Feel free to add the names of Luther scholars who think anti-Jewish pogroms are not antisemitic: I think it will be a very short list. Have you looked "pogrom" up in a dictionary? (E.g. MW Collegiate 11th: "an organized massacre of helpless people; specifically: such a massacre of Jews"). Clearly your proposed "50-50 balance" is distorted rather than neutral. - Nunh-huh 01:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Nunh-huh, I agree. I have to admit that this alledged "controversy" seems a bit bizarre. Furthermore, until someone here can cite some prominent adherents of the position that Luther did not become an antisemite [[8]], we must assume that such a position is held at best by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority and that it does not belong in this article. If anyone wants to dispute this, please read this [[9]]. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Doright 03:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

In all due respect, quite a few scholars that see Luther's comments quite differently than you do. Please read the talk on the main Martin Luther article. --CTSWyneken 02:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You can identify scholars who state that "proposing a pogrom on Jews" is not antisemitic? None are mentioned, here or on the other talk page you refer to. - Nunh-huh 03:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you supply the names of some scholars who do not believe that proposing a pogrom of Jews would be antisemitic?

CTSWyneken, if what you say is true, you must be able to meet the above test, and cite references to the prominent adherents of your position, otherwise I must conclude that you are representing a POV held by an extremely small minority and does not belong in Wikipedia. Doright 03:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Doright, Nunh-huh, please note that I've not address the very specific issue of whether Luther's comments constitute a program that he intended to be carried out, etc. Niether of our opinions matter, just what scholars say about the issue. I could easily ask you to provide a scholarly reference that says "Luther proposed a pogrom on the Jews," which, to me, is not necessary, since he has been charged with far worse. --CTSWyneken 20:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

(Nor have I. What I have done is ask Ed Poor why he takes the position that "proposing a pogrom on Jews" is not necessarily antisemitic. In response to my question to him, you opined that there might be some scholars who so say. Do you now wish to withdraw that opinion, or to name those scholars? The discussion was not involving whether scholars thought Luther proposed such a pogrom, or if they thought he was serious about its implementation. - Nunh-huh 14:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

With all due respect, Ed did not say anything at all about Luther recommending a pogrom, or about it being anti-semitic. He was addressing the general issue, as was I. I have not explored this specific charge, so I do not know if there are scholars that charge him with suggesting such a thing or if there is a reply. If time permits, I will look for a discussion of this, even though I suspect the charge that Luther was the architect of Kristalnacht is much more serious. We have this documented already (at least in the talk on the Martin Luther page) and I have no objection to finding a place for it here. --CTSWyneken 20:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You keep saying "with all due respect" and then showing none. I can read, and I know what I was responding to, and you apparently don't. Here's what Ed said: "Is it generally agreed that proposing a pogrom on Jews because of their rejection of Christ or Christianity is "anti-Semitic"?" and here's the diff where he said it. I can understand that you were not following a conversation not involving you, taking place over several different pages, but I would prefer you not speak so definitively when you don't have the facts. - Nunh-huh 16:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If I've missed part of the conversation, I apologize. I do not see these words on the talk page. If they are from someplace else, please consider I and others come to this page without necessarily seeing notes elsewhere. It would be helpful to me if you would keep your reply to comments with the comments themselves or briefly summarize them when you switch pages.

I'd like to start fresh, if it's OK. Please note the beginnings of this effort at or near the bottom of the talk page. --CTSWyneken 20:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they are from someplace else, as I indicated. Yes, conversation about Luther and antisemitism is now scattered in various points around the Wikipedia, largely as a consequence of the decision to segregate the unpleasant material from the main article, and the renaming of the forked article. I will take it as given, then, you don't know of any scholars who assert that proposing a pogrom on Jews is not antisemitic, and we can move forward in trying to strike a balance between mainstream thought and Luther's apologists on this matter. Certainly that balance has not been struck so far. The section on "religious intolerance in the 16th century" suggests that the relationship of religion and governance was foreordained by chronology, and ignores, for example, Muslim Spain which was far more tolerant and less violent than Lutheran Württemberg, centuries earlier. It manages to suggest that intolerance is the inevitable result of intermingling of religion and statecraft, rather than suggesting that antisemitism results from Christianity. It is Christianity that raised the persecution of heretics to an art form, not the "16th century". (And why is the paragraph discussing heretics? Jews have never been considered heretics.) The article gets better when we quote Luther, which we should do right away, and gets worse when we start out with elaborate apologies in an attempt to "immunize" the reader. The apologetics don't belong in the beginning, but at the end. And certainly Oberman's quote doesn't belong unopposed at the beginning, as if the view that the distinction between antisemitism and "anti-Judaism" were universally thought of as meaningful. We now start with three paragraphs trying to persuade the reader that what Luther said was worse than what he meant. Move those down towards the end and you've improved the article immensely. - Nunh-huh 01:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I have seen no scholar (not that there isn't one) who has called what Luther proposed a pogrom. What I would suggest is we all try to work together. Please see the section below. What do you think of my initial proposed language and Humus' suggested improvement? Please answer in the section below. --CTSWyneken 13:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest, since we've deleted the whole first paragraph and inserted a quote from the eminant Luther scholar, Heiko Obermann, is that we move on to crafting a new introduction that meets the need to lead into the body of the article and maintains a balance between viewpoints. A beginning has been made below. --CTSWyneken 14:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

What I have been saying -- and citing -- long before you joined the discussion is that many scholars of Luther do not believe Luther's harsh and venomous words to anti-semitic. These people see them as a part of Luther's harsh polemical style. He said equally harsh things about other groups that opposed him theologically (easily cited, if you wish) and did not actually intend them to be taken exactly literally. This is at least a substantial opinion within the scholarly community. Again, take a look at the few quotes I have on the talk page of the Martin Luther article. Many more are available, given a few hours of work to generate them. --CTSWyneken 20:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed New Introduction

Why are we quoting from Amazon's customer reviews, especially quotes which equate Jews with "enemies of the gospel"? Buying a book (and presumably reading it) doesn't make one encyclopedic, does it? - Nunh-huh 02:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Good question. It's obviously an absurd "reference." Doright 03:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Especially since the same point can be documented directly from scholars. Although, I'd appreciate it if people would be so kind as to not characterize others words as absurd. --CTSWyneken 11:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not the same point can be reasonably made from scholarly source is not the issue. My statement referred to the source of the words, as in, "Why are we quoting from Amazon's customer reviews," and did not refer to the words themselves. Although, I'd appreciate it if people would be so kind as to not mischaracterize my words. I would also appreciate it if people would stop repeatedly fail to either understand or make such distinctions and use such distortions as a basis to poison the well since this does not create confidence in one's ability to do any better on more substantive issues.Doright 18:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I reworked the intro. There is plenty of sourced quotes by reputable authorities on the subject. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The Obermann quote is a good start. What I'd like us to do next is to say something like (not necessarily in these words, BTW) as an introduction:

Martin Luther's relationship to the Jewish people was complex. Sometimes his words were harsh and venomous, even to the point of recommending harsh persecution of the Jews. Other times he was kind and generous. Scholars from all perspectives have struggled to determine the significance of Luther's words. Some charge Luther with anti-semitism (Johnson quote) and responsibility for the holocaust (Shirer or similar), others have seen these words as a vicious polemic against Judaism (Obermann, Siemon-Netto).

Then the balance of the article, Expanded, filled out and carefully stated to represent all significant scholarly views. --CTSWyneken 14:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Humus, may I verify the quotations of your "quoted in" notes, where possible, so that we can cite the items directly? --CTSWyneken 17:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

CTSWyneken, I welcome doublechecking every statement and quote: that would be in line with WP:V and other WP policies and will only give us more credibility.

Regarding the intro you propose: I would say "troublesome" instead of "complex" but otherwise keep it short. I don't think argument-counterargument belongs in the intro.

Please correct me if I am wrong: ML was being "kind and generous" at times in order to convert Jews. I hope you are aware that Jews do not approve (I am being overly polite here) such attempts, because that is just another way of inducing them to cease be Jews. See [10] and [11] for more. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hopes for conversion were a part of Luther's motivation for his sometime kindness to the Jews -- and others. I do see evidence of his responding somewhat differently than his very acidic rherotic would lead one to suspect. We have evidence of him giving shelter in his home to some of his bitterest enemies. I recall vaguely that he once sheltered some Jewish children when their father was being persecuted by a Lutheran or Protestant Prince. (I don't want to assert the latter too strongly, for I'd have to dig to see if its documentable.)

Yes, I would anticipate that Jews wouldn't receive the wish for their conversion very well. I don't particularly receive it well when non-Christians try to convert Christians, either. I try to remind myself that the motivation is likely benevalent -- but it doesn't help much. --CTSWyneken 15:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

On the first paragraph front, the current version is better, but slightly unbalanced from the perspective of representing the issue from all scholarly perspectives. I'll swap out the current for my text, with the "troublesome" substitution, sans quotes, which we can pick up in the body of the article. I'm not especially committed to the words here, but would appreciate that other editors discuss it here before modifying it. Much less chaos and more harmony in that way. --CTSWyneken 15:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Verified Marius quote and changed citation to the source. Interesting to note, Marius does not use documentation in this passage in his book. --CTSWyneken 16:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

A few problems with the current intro:

1. Traditionally, Jews strongly reject attempts to convert them, even if those attempts are disguised as "kind and generous". This phrase either requires a disclaimer that this was a proselytizing effort, or a proof that it wasn't.
2. Why Oberman's quote was moved out of the into? It sums up the basis of Luther's anti-Judaism. Until he is proven wrong, I'm returning it back.
3. vicious polemic against Judaism is anti-semitism, so this phrase will have to be reworked. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Some things which are still concerns:

Why are we asserting Luther's position was "troublesome"? It's troublesome only to those who want to idealize Luther. Similarly, the "struggle" to understand this position is only a "struggle" for those who don't want to acknowledge it as a natural consequence of religious intolerance.

Why are we enshrining Oberman? The quotation isn't particularly explanatory, and it certainly doesn't belong unopposed at the beginning, as if the view that the distinction between antisemitism and "anti-Judaism" were universally thought of as meaningful.

We now start with several paragraphs trying to persuade the reader that what Luther said was worse than what he meant. Move those down towards the end and you've improved the article immensely.

The whole section on the 16th century is wrongheaded. There's nothing about the 16th century that required religious intolerance (or verbal coarseness for that matter). And the paragraph equates heresy and Judaism, which Christians, in general, don't.

Perhaps something more like: Martin Luther's relationship with Jews and Judaism was troubled. He thought himself kind and generous in his effort to convert them to Christianity, but when his proselytizing attempts failed, he became embittered and recommended harsh persecution of the Jews. Scholars, especially those who otherwise admire Luther, have struggled to determine the reasons for Luther's inconstant attitude towards Jews. According to Heiko Oberman, "[t]he basis of Luther's anti-Judaism was the conviction that ever since Christ's appearance on earth, the Jews have had no more future as Jews."[1] - Nunh-huh 04:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Works for me, more or less. I was trying to balance between neutral encyclopedic truth (as I know it) and accomodating the sensitivities of the subject.

Please see also the Martin Luther#Martin Luther and the Jews. In the course of a heated discussion regarding that summary, first Johnson's and then MacCulloch's quotes were moved out from that article into this one. I am still convinced that MacC's quote belongs in that summary section and in support, I posted several relevant quotes at Talk:Martin Luther.

I believe Oberman's quote belongs in the intro because it reflects the basis of ML's feelings, but I'm open to other suggestions. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The summary in that article suffers from the same syndrome as this article does: it seeks to prejudice the reader by presenting the views of apologists and other "spinners" of Luther first, rather than presenting Luther's words first. Particularly, neither "Religious intolerance in the 16th century" nor "Luther's polemics" belong before ""Luther's Statements about the Jews". (I can't say I've ever known the forking of material that some are uncomfortable with to result in a better article.) I agree that the inclusion of a heartier selection of views regarding Luther's antisemitism would benefit both the Luther article and this one, and would encourage you to place them in this one at least. - Nunh-huh 07:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Nunh, I agree with you 100%, prejudice, apologists and spinners and those who want to re-write history with respect to Luther's historical contributions to the culture that led to the murder of 6,000,000 Jews. Doright 07:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

First, Please forgive my not using the full indent. It's starting to drive me crazy.

Second, I certainly am not committed to the wording of the introduction or anything else in the article for that matter. If someone has a way of expressing the scholarly debate on the meaning of Luther's words other than "troubled" (Humus' suggestion) or "complex" (my initial suggestion) please suggest it. I think "troublesome" is accurate. Our own comments validate it in spades. I would say that it is putting it mildly to say that Jews are troubled by these words. Lutherans are too, who wish he had never penned or spoken such venom. Is there another way to say this?

Third, we can qualify the "kind and generous" clause, as long as we reflect that Luther, especially early in his career, sometimes came to the defense of the Jews and this was appreciated by the Rabbis of his day. (if someone would like, I can document this) What I would wish for is a short introduction that neither acquits Luther nor paints him as the architect of all evil, Satan incarnate.

Please stop "presenting the views of apologists and other "spinners" of Luther first, rather than presenting Luther's words first."Doright 18:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop insulting reputable scholars, simply because you do not like what they say. --CTSWyneken 21:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there no end to your personal attacks and libel? Please stop insulting me, simply because you do not like what I say.Doright 01:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Fourth, I moved the Oberman quote because my impression was that we wanted to keep from making the intro unduly long. I have no objection to it remaining there, although a longer quote from another source or one from each party in the debate would serve better.

Fifth, I'd prefer to deal with one paragraph in one article at a time. This whole matter is taking a good deal of research at a very busy time at the grad school where I work. In addition, it would be helpful if we could work one issue at a time.

Sixtth, Doright, it does not help that you insist on questioning the motives of a whole class of people, most of whom you have never met.

CTSWyneken, With all due respect, it does not help that you insist on repeatedly making personal attacks. Exactly who is this "whole class of people" that you are talking about? Does this class have a name, identity or some characteristics that you can identify? Are you a member of this class? I merely added historical revisionists to user:Nunh-huh's list (i.e., apologists and other "spinners"). He said, The summary in that article suffers from the same syndrome as this article does: it seeks to prejudice the reader by presenting the views of apologists and other "spinners" of Luther first, rather than presenting Luther's words first. Thou doth protest too much, methinks.Doright 18:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

When you call those who wish to explain the context of Luther's words "historical revisionists," accuse them of re-writing, claim they are trying to prejudice others, it is you, not I, that is engaging in a personal attack. You have also attacked Humus on these pages. This is a observation. If you wish to engage in civil discussion, I am willing. If not, I have nothing more to say to you. --CTSWyneken 21:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, and David Irving just wishes to explain the context of the holocaust. It's a feeble scholar who cannot recognize that he has a point of view. It is quite transparent that you continue to choose to attack me incessantly. Taking advantage of my conversation with Humus, you pile on by attacking me. How queer it is that you attack me and not the esteemed editor that I have been merely agreeing with. You don't attack him for pointing out the problem, but me for merely agreeing with it. It appears you are a bad actor. I have seen others point out to you your obsequious failure to respect other editors. As you say like to say, “With all due respect, this is an observation." I would like to suggest that you stop telling us what you "appreciate" and "do not appreciate." I don't think the Luther and antisemitsm talk page is the place for it. Nor do I think anyone is interested. Doright 01:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

So, fellow editors, where would you like to go from here? --CTSWyneken 12:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've restored the introduction to something brief, sensible, and meaningful - fairly similar to what it was before all this editing turned it into a morass of competing accusations and apologetics. I've also place relevant material in relevant sections, and removed material that is not on the topic of this sub-article. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

oops, I noticed you changed the title but not the text so I did something similar and introduced a few of my own clarifications. I had not noticed that you beat me to the punch. lol great minds think alike? I certainly did not mean to disregard any new changes that you may have introduced. Perhaps you can take a look and see if something is missing. I'll try to do the same. Regards, Doright 23:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Jayg, your new introduction did not reflect the views of quite a few in the scholarly community. I have adjusted it to bring it into compliance with WP:NPOV, "Why should Wikipedia be unbiased?", paragraph 2. --CTSWyneken 01:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It's interesting that the Online Medieval Sourcebook does such a better job at an introduction than we have been able to so far. "At the beginning of his career it is often said that Luther was apparently sympathetic to Jewish resistance to the Catholic Church. He wrote, early in his career:

The Jews are blood-relations of our Lord; if it were proper to boast of flesh and blood, the Jews belong more to Christ than we. I beg, therefore, my dear Papist, if you become tired of abusing me as a heretic, that you begin to revile me as a Jew.

However, sometime before 1517, in his Letters to Spalatin, we can already see that Luther's hatred of Jews, best seen in this 1543 letter, was not some affectation of old age, but was present very early on. Luther expected Jews to convert to his purified Christianity. When they did not, he turned violently against them.

It is impossible for modern people to read the horrible passages below and not to think of the burning of synagogues in November 1938 on Krystalnacht. Nor would one wish to excuse Luther for this text.

A number of points must, however, be made. The most important concerns the language used. Luther used violent and vulgar language throughout his career: he was not a man to say "manure" when he meant "shit". We do not expect religious figures to use this sort of language in the modern world, but it was not uncommon in the early 16th century. Second, although Luther's comments seem to be proto-Nazi, they are better seen as part of tradition of Medieval Christian anti-semitism. While there is little doubt that Christian anti-Semitism laid the social and cultural basis for modern anti-Semitism, modern anti-Semitism does differ in being based on pseud-scientific notions of race. The Nazis imprisoned and killed Jews who had converted to Christianity: Luther would have welcomed them." [12]

Remove a few emotive adjectives, make a few changes so it's a bit less didactic and you've got a reasonable summary that is fair to all points of view. - Nunh-huh 02:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we can use much of this, with adjustments you suggest and a quote or two to add judgments of other scholars. Unfortunately, such comments have been deleted from here as overly apologetic in nature. --CTSWyneken 11:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Please sign your comments

Dear user:CTSWyneken, you are making it very difficult to follow the dialog here. Please sign your comments. When you intersperse your comments in another editor's text and do not sign your name you create confusion. In the many interspersed places where you have made unsigned comments, please go back and sign them using 3 tildes. Also, please note that it is customary to indent your replies. It does help the reader. Thank you in advance. Doright 19:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I typically try to keep these things signed and indented, buth sometimes loose track in these interwoven discussions... I'll try to keep things sorted out a bit better in the future. --CTSWyneken 20:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The new title

Am I the only one who doesn't like the new title? I would prefer Martin Luther and the Jews: it is easier to find, it is more to the point and it avoids apostrophe. Also the current title limits the scope only to "statements". ←Humus sapiens←ну? 12:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Luther and the Jews is a better title, too. It better describes the content of the article, which should be all about Luther's relationship with the Jews, the issue of anti-semitism v. anti-judaism and all of the fallout concerning it. --CTSWyneken 12:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree as well; the new title is terrible, and there was no consensus for the move. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the work. --CTSWyneken 01:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright of On the Jews

I have spoken with the Permissions department at Augsburg Fortress Press, the copyright holders of this translation of On the Jews and their Lies. They affirm that they hold the rights to this work and that they have never given permission to post the text on the internet. Therefore, we should not link to any version of this translation online. We should quote from the physical copy of the work or translate from the original German. Several editors of this and the main article have taken this up with wikipedia authorities before and they have reported back agreement with my position in this matter. I have removed the links. --CTSWyneken 01:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop Trying to hide the truth

Until you can demonstate evidence of either a policy decision by Wiki management or a court order, forget it. You have zero credibility. I believe the web publisher when they sayregarding "On the Jews and their Lies": The following text is the English translation found in the hard cover edition of "Luther's Works," Volume 47, pages 137-306, published by Fortress Press/Philadelphia (1955). According to the Library of Congress online database, this fine translation didn't have it's copyright renewed in 1983, and has fallen into the public domain. [[13]] I also trust the Professor Paul Halsall, publisher of the Internet History Source Book Project who also does not agree with you [[14]].

Copyright Status of On the Jews and Their Lies

Verso of the Title Page, Luther's Works, Vol. 47, "The Christian in Society": (c) 1971 Fortess Press, Library of Congress Number 55-9893, ISBN 0 8006 0347 8

You are welcome to call Augsburg Fortress. http://www.augsburgfortress.org/copyrights/contact.asp [15]

Warning from US Copyright Office on trusting the office's records: "Searches of the Copyright Office catalogs and records are useful in helping to determine the copyright status of a work, but they cannot be regarded as conclusive in all cases. The complete absence of any information about a work in the Office records does not mean that the work is unprotected." [16] --CTSWyneken 02:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Project Gutenberg: "Rule 6 in the Copyright HOW-TO describes the situation in which an item copyrighted between 1923 and 1963 may be in the public domain if it was not renewed. (Items from 1964 and afterwards were automatically renewed; items prior to 1923 are in the public domain.)" http://promo.net/pg/vol/howto6.html [17] The volume in Which "On the Jews..." appears was published in 1971. --CTSWyneken 13:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Laura N. Gasaway, J.D. (Director of the Law Library, Professor of Law, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill), "WHEN U.S. WORKS PASS INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN": "Published from 1964 - 77, When published with notice, 28 years for first term; now automatic extension of 67 years for second term." http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm [18]

Therefore, Augsburg Fortress is correct; the still hold the copyright in this work. --CTSWyneken 13:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

CTSWyneken Stop Deleting Links to Fordham University and other Scholarly Sources that are in the Public Domain

AS EXPECTED, CTSWyneken HAS PROVIDE ZERO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS REPEATED CENSORING OF "On the Jews and their Lies" FROM WIKIPEDIA USERS. FORDHAM STATES THE BOOK IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN And the US Copyright Office has no evidence of of his claim. Yet, CTS is repeatedly preventing Wiki users access to this essential historical and scholarly document. This is gross misconduct. Stop it.

"The Internet History Sourcebooks are collections of PUBLIC DOMAIN and copy-permitted historical texts presented cleanly (without advertising or excessive layout) for educational use." [[19]]

By definition, no one can copyright public domain works, nor does anyone meed permission to anything they would like with them. A source, like this one, that claims copyright in PD works is at best untrustworthy. --CTSWyneken 02:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear colleague, They claim just the opposite. Fordham Univertsity SOURCE SAYS THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT. It is you that is claiming copyright of PD works, not them.Doright 17:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

1983 is not the renewal date for this copyright! The Copyright is 1971, and 28 years after that date is 1999! They need to research this more. drboisclair 18:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note that all copyrights for works published after 1964 had their copyrights automatically renewed by congress. See section on copyright below. --CTSWyneken 19:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources of Scholars that deny Luther was a major contributor to antisemitism

Can anyone provide a verifiable reference to a scholar that has denied that Luther was a major contributor to antisemitism? (antisemitism means hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group[[20]]) Doright

Richard Marius. Luther (Lippencott, 1974): "Luther never organized any campaign against the Jews, and, as Heiko Oberman has said, despite the ferocity of his tirades against them he never renounced the notion of coexistence between Jews and Christians. But the fact that Luther's hostility to Jews was not the same as modern anti-Semitism does not excuse it." p. 380

More to come tomorrow. --CTSWyneken 03:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, but this is NOT evidence that Richard Marius denied Luther was a major contributor to antisemitism. He merely says, Luther never organized any "campaign" against the Jews and that Luther believed that despite the "race" of the Jew, he could still be converted. Marius' usage of "modern anti-Semitism" is a technical code word for discrimination against Jews as a racial group for which conversion is inadequet. This is, of course, according to the definition provided by Websters, only one of the serveral criteria for antisemitism of which only 1 has to be met to be considered antisemitism. Doright 09:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, CTSWyneken is a professional theologian and an expert at library science. I think we should avoid the ad hominems here. It must be brought out that the use others make of works written in the past is no grounds for blaming the author. This is similar to blaming Machiavelli for being "a major contributor to facism." Luther's works were used by 20th Century anti-semites. We need to be careful about clarification here. drboisclair 19:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Nahum Norbert Glatzer, Prof. of Jewish History, Brandeis University. In "Anti-Semitism," Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia vol. 2:198-201, does not mention Martin Luther or his writings at all. --CTSWyneken 12:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Bertram, Martin H. "Introduction." Luther's Works v. 47:136: "The immediate effect of Luther's proposals thus was small; it remained for a later century to refine and systematize them and apply them on a massive scale." --CTSWyneken 15:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear colleague, your own citation here from Bertram supports the assertion that Luther was a contributor to antisemitism. In fact your own quote says that LUTHER'S PROPOSALS were applied on a MASSIVE SCALE. The term I use in my proposed intro is "major." If you rather says that Luther's contributions were massive rather than major, I will not object.Doright 18:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Kittelson, James M. Luther the Reformer Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986, p. 274: "Luther never became an anti-Semite in the modern, racial sense of the term. In March 1538 he published a Letter against the Sabbatarians in which he declared that the Jews could not be the people of God because they were still waiting for the Messiah to come. Luther was anti-Jewish in the sense that he opposed anyone who taught contrary to his doctrine. But, as with so many of his other opponents, he could never let the issue go." --CTSWyneken 21:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Colleague, again your citation supports exactly the opposite of what you claim. Your Kittelson reference merely asserts that Luther's antisemitism was not based on race, but that it was based upon religion. Again, please recall the definition of antisemitism does not require it to be based upon race. Rather it can be based upon RACE OR ETHNICITY OR RELIGION.[21] Clearly Luther meets the religious criterion. Doright 18:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

EXACTLY ZERO SOURCES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED that deny Luther was a major contributor to antisemitism. Until some are produced, we must conclude that they do not exist in any meaningful number. So what is the debate? Is this debate just a red herring?Doright 18:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a source that claims "Luther was a major contributor to antisemitism." might be produced. --CTSWyneken 02:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Intro as of Morning 15 December 2005

There is some good language here that can be used, but it needs to be adjusted to comply with WP:NPOV, "Why should Wikipedia be unbiased?", paragraph 2. In addition, considering the debate this topic raises, citations to scholarly sources need to be restored. --CTSWyneken 11:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This has now been set to a more NPOV, non-inflammatory intro. --StanZegel (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

An intro should indeed be neutral - neutral does not mean "apologetic". The current intro is a bare-bones, non-inflammatory neutral statement of the topic of this article which does not introduce any unsourced claims, condemnations, or excuses. 16:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes, but it also introduces precious little information. - Nunh-huh 02:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ro-organization

I have cleaned up this article yet again. The article was a mess, with much duplicated material, unused footnotes, different footnoting systems etc. As well, the structure was confused. It now has a simple, factual, un-inflammatory, non-apologetic introduction which explains the topic of the article. It then has a section listing his statements about the Jews. It then has a section listing various views about his statements. I then lists Lutheran church reactions to them. It contains no extraneous material. Now, could the anti-Luther editors please stop trying to get condemnations of him into the intro, or as prominently placed as possible, and could the Lutheran apologists please stop trying to get excuses for his statements into the intro, or as prominently placed as possible? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Jayg. That is indeed a well-balanced intro and nicely written. I can live with it if the others can. --CTSWyneken 16:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I am gratified by your outstanding help on this article. Your neutrality is exemplary. drboisclair 02:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hitler has been accused of Anti-Semitism though his defenders have said he exhibited racism.

I’m sorry but I do not agree with the following formulation:

‘’He [Luther]has been accused of Anti-Semitism though his defenders have said he exhibited Anti-Judaism.’’

To my ear it sounds as absurd as Hitler has been accused of Anti-Semitism though his defenders have said he exhibited racism. –or- Hitler has been accused of Anti-Judaism though his defenders have said he exhibited anti-Semitism.

First, let’s agree on definition:

• Anti-Semitism Function: noun hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group. [22]

Anti-Judaism is not found in this widely used dictionary [23]. However, we know that anti-Judaism is hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious group. This makes anti-Judaism anti-Semitism. Also, from other sources we know that anti-Judaism is Religious Anti-Semitism [24].

My reasons are:

1) There is no need to say that Luther has been “accused” of anything. This is obviously a loaded POV term. 2) The statement is a contradiction since “Anti-Judaism” is merely “Anti-Semitism based upon religion”. Please re-read above definition of anti-Semitism. 3) Inclusion of the qualifier “though” implies that there are more than “an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority” that deny the accusation. Yet, no editor has been able to produce even one let alone a “significant minority” of “prominent” deniers of the accusation. Therefore it suffers from the POV problem of “Undue Weight.” 4) Perhaps more to come later, I’m out of time J

I prefer:

Martin Luther is widely regarded as a major contributor to Anti-Semitism, and his texts are standard reading for university level study of antisemitism. Antisemitism is hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.[[25]] As an example of Luther's contributions to antisemitism, scholars frequently point to his treatise On the Jews and their Lies and the testimony of Nazi antisemites at the Nuremberg trials. Anti-Judaism the technical term for hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious group is preferred by some to communicate the place, time and context of Luther's career.

I invite everyone to challenge the veracity of this intro by actually editing it here in talk rather than merely deleting it from the article. Doright 05:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Private opinions of editors are irrelevant. Perhaps a source that claims "Luther was a major contributor to antisemitism." might be produced. --CTSWyneken 11:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

CTS, All the references you provided here and are now deleted were already produced by you in the section "Sources of Scholars that deny Luther was a major contributor to antisemitism." Plus all the responses are already there. Why the duplication? Doright 19:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is customary not to delete or edit the words of others on talk pages.

There you go again with you misconduct attempting to impugn my integrity instead of sticking to the subject of the article. I did not delete nor edit your words as you facetiously claim. I moved them to where they belonged and clearly advised you and everyone else that I had done so. I have seen respected editors move blocks of text with talk pages. It only appears as though I deleted them because they are exact duplicates of what is already there.Doright 00:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I copied these references here because the challenge, first issued above was repeated here. The challenge asked for evidence. I provided it again. --CTSWyneken 21:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Colleague, If you believe it is important to duplicate the reference list here and thereby burdern the other editors with reading the exact same material repetitiously, then go ahead and put it back. However, if you do so, please also copy my responses that show that your very own references not only contradict your position but in fact support the position that there is wide spread agreement that Luther is a contributor to antisemitism.Doright 00:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

However, I would like to point out that the other section is clearly identified as the one for citing such references, whereas this section is for discussing the language of my proposal. If I may respectfully suggest, it is better to refer to the above section rather than duplicating it. By the way, I have seen respected editors moveDoright 00:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The current intro is in compliance with WP:NPOV, "Why should Wikipedia be unbiased?", paragraph 2, the above is not. --CTSWyneken 11:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Colleagues, I hope we are all in agreement that to collaborate productively, we all have to be polite and respectful to others and analyze arguments not persons. Discuss the rest on user talk pages and personal email.

That out of the way, I must say that I don't like the current short one - pretty much for the same reasons as Doright pointed out above. As to his proposed version:

• I don't like the wording a major contributor to Anti-Semitism - in 21st century this wording implies some ethnic/racial connotations which is not true in case of ML. I saw historians calling him a "religious antisemite", or "Christian antisemite". I agree that Anti-Judaism is a murky term and may be understood by some as "religious antisemitism" and by others as "not antisemitism". ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you agree with "major contributor" but that your concern is with the term antisemitism. Humus, I respectfully submit to you that the Merriam-Webster Dictionary published online TODAY, does not agree with you. They specifically state that antisemitism does not necessarily imply race. They say usage in the 21 century implie RELIGION OR ETHNICITY OR RACE. Doright 19:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Trust me, I know what AS is. I think we should qualify that Luther's AS was strictly religious. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think that simple labeling is not a very good idea for the intro and that we should mention that he was driven by the aim to convert them and was embittered by failure.←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I assert that it is POV to say that he is "accused" with antisemitism. The term accused has a negative connotation and not all people believe that antisemitism is a negative thing. However, do you agree that Luther has been a contributor? Doright 19:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Links to external refs should be avoided in intro (per WP:MOS, if I am not mistaken). We already have a decent corresponding WP article and ther is Wiktionary, why send the reader to W-M?←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

For the very same reason I must repeat in our wiki converstaions, seemingly endlessly, ;) what the definition is. I cite a non wiki reference because of its authority.Doright 19:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Why define Anti-Judaism here, especially if the term is not even being used?←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I define the term here because some other editors want to use the term here. Since it is a "term of art" i.e., a technical term with a special purpose definition that is clearly open to misunderstanding, I think the definition needs to be present. Also, the identification of anti-Judaism as a subset of anti-Semitism is in fact at the core of the dispute between the editors. I suspect that this is a definitional problem. I cite Merriam-Webster as my authority. Doright 19:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster only deals with the definition of words. Just because this is the common usage of a word does not mean that it is an accurate definition. Merriam-Webster is only an authority on lexicography, not history, theology, or philosphy. Reliance on such an authority betrays an over-reliance on secondary and tertiary sources. drboisclair 19:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Drboisclair, I'm glad to see we are coming to agreement. This is, as even you now say, the common definition of the word anti-Semitism However, you don't seem to understand what a dictionary is nor what a definition is. Suffice it to say, that the common usage, the common meaning, is by definition THE DEFINITION. That is, it is what people are going to understand you to mean when you use the word. I, apparently unlike you, rely upon the dictionary to understand what meaning a literate reader is likely to take from a word. The purpose of creating an encylopedia is to communicate. Now, if you open up a dictionary, you may find a word has more than one meaning. Plus a word may have a meaning to a special community that is not included in a general dictionary of the english language. That is, a word may have a technical meaning known only to those initiated to the literature of that specialty. Your usage of the word antisemitism falls into this category of "technical term" or "term of art." However, what you appear to be unfamilar with is that another technical use of the term antisemitism used by scholars (and popular writers) is one that happens to be identical to the one provided by Merriam-Webster! For example, as someone who has studied the literature of antisemitism longer than most people have been alive, I'm personally familar with several meanings and usage of the term. However, I certainly would not expect the typical user of an encyclopedia to know them. It's also quite clear now that I should not expect editors of an encyclopedia to be familar either. As I stated several times already, you are demanding that we limit our use of the term to only one of it's meanings AND TO DENY THAT THE OTHER MEANINGS AND USAGES EVEN EXIST or absurdly that they are not accurate. The fact is that all scholars of the subject know that antisemitism is sometimes used to denote Jew hatred for any reason OR Jew hatred based upon race. If you know the etymology of the word you will begin to understand that it expanded in its meaning from the time it was originally coined. Doright 10:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

On a separate note in regards to this article, I'd like to follow up the earlier suggestions to merge some parts of PD 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia article. Also, I think it would be beneficial and encyclopedic to have a section on modern historian's views on Luther's positions - again, not for namecalling sake but to authoritatively describe his motives and influences. Regards. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Good to see you back at this article, Humus. I have no objections to a larger intro, providing that both sides of the scholarly discussion on this topic are represented. I also think, given the emotions involved here, we be sure to cite sources, although we can leave the quotes for below. The other consideration is that we want an intro to introduce, not be the article.

Do you have some suggested language that we might add? Also, since Jayg did a good job of balancing both perspectives, I'd suggest that we wait until consensus is achieved with his assistance. --CTSWyneken 12:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright and On the Jews and Their Lies

Status

Verso of the Title Page, Luther's Works, Vol. 47, "The Christian in Society": (c) 1971 Fortess Press, Library of Congress Number 55-9893, ISBN 0 8006 0347 8

Laura N. Gasaway, J.D. (Director of the Law Library, Professor of Law, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill), "WHEN U.S. WORKS PASS INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN": "Published from 1964 - 77, When published with notice, 28 years for first term; now automatic extension of 67 years for second term." http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm [26]

Therefore, Augsburg Fortress is correct; the still hold the copyright in this work.--CTSWyneken 15:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Online searches not sufficient to establish status

Warning from US Copyright Office on trusting the office's records: "Searches of the Copyright Office catalogs and records are useful in helping to determine the copyright status of a work, but they cannot be regarded as conclusive in all cases. The complete absence of any information about a work in the Office records does not mean that the work is unprotected." [27]

Project Gutenberg: "Rule 6 in the Copyright HOW-TO describes the situation in which an item copyrighted between 1923 and 1963 may be in the public domain if it was not renewed. (Items from 1964 and afterwards were automatically renewed; items prior to 1923 are in the public domain.)" http://promo.net/pg/vol/howto6.html [28] The volume in Which "On the Jews..." appears was published in 1971. --CTSWyneken 15:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Publisher claims never gave permission

I called the publisher. To verify, You are welcome to call Augsburg Fortress also. http://www.augsburgfortress.org/copyrights/contact.asp [29]

I have an inquiry in to Fordham as well. Will report back what they say. --CTSWyneken 15:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC) --CTSWyneken 15:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I contacted Augsburg Fortress, and they have indicated to me that they have never given permission to post "On the Jews and Their Lies" translated by Martin Bertram on the internet. The copyright is some 16 years more recent than the first volumes of Luther's Works, so the copyright still stands. drboisclair 15:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Short quotes fair use

Short quotations and excerpts, however, are fair use. I can provide links, if anyone would find that helpful. --CTSWyneken 11:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Earlier Report of Wikipedia Consensus

I just asked about this in the wikipedia IRC channel. User:Smoddy says that this issue was addressed on the Wikipedia mailing list, and they basically came to your conclusion of "better safe than sorry". So the link stays off. We can add an offline reference to the book. I'll do that. Babajobu 18:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Fordham University in error

They have not researched the copyright date of the Martin Bertram translation of "Von den Juden und Ihren Luegen". The copyright date of that translation is 1971, so it would expire in 1999, not in 1983 as Fordham claims on their posting of this document. Universities can be wrong about things because people make mistakes. I wonder if they know about the American Edition of Luther's Works and if they have looked at the copyright page. They have probably gotten off the track by assuming that the copyright date for all of the American Edition of Luther's Works is 1955, which it isn't. Each volume has its own copyright date FYI.drboisclair 18:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

New Attempt to Work Together on Intro

Fellow editors: Since several of us think the current intro is well-balanced and neutral, I propose we consider its strength and weaknesses as an intro to the article. If we can come to some agreement on this, perhaps we can come to a consensus on how to proceed. Can we also consider one point at a time?

First, I believe the purpose of an article intro is to give the basic theme of the article, so a reader will know whether or not he or she wants to read it. Does everyone agree with this?

I agree with this, but I believe that User:Jayjg has done a good job of formulating the intro as it stands. It is balanced and NPOV. drboisclair 14:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

But also nearly completely uninformative. - Nunh-huh 23:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! I appreciate it greatly.

The next question will be does it do this well or not.

But I think we can get a bit farther if we deal with the first question first. If we come to a consensus on what an intro should do, we can work together to make it do this.

When we get to it, I think we can put down DRBoisclair as an "its does" and Nunh-huh as it doesn't.

So, I guess I'm asking if we all believe that my statement above describes what we should be trying to do or not. Please feel free to suggest modification of that purpose. --CTSWyneken 00:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The current intro would give the basic theme of the article if the theme were "was Luther antisemitic or antijudaic". I don't think that should be the theme of the article. The theme of the article should be "what did Luther write about Jews, how have his writings been interpreted, what motivations did he have for these writings, and what consequences have these writings had." - Nunh-huh 02:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Very good and reasonable outline for the article, I think. Thanks Nunh-huh! I see it seems everyone (at least here at the moment) agrees. Let's go with it.

--CTSWyneken 13:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Nunh-huh here. How's this:

Martin Luther's position toward Jews is often described(refs) as "religious anti-Semitism" or "anti-Judaism". "The basis of Luther's anti-Judaism was the conviction that ever since Christ's appearance on earth, the Jews have had no more future as Jews."(ref). When his efforts to convert them to Christianity by what he called "Christian love" failed, he became embittered and recommended harsh persecution of the Jews.

I was asked to comment on the copyright issue. Sorry I am almost clueless about copyrights. Do we violate it by merely linking to something already on the internet? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The short answer is... no one really knows. (if anyone wishes, I'll cite sources for this.) It is not mentioned in the copyright law itself and courts have heard, but not decided the issue at any federal level. We came close in Utah Lighthouse v. Intellectual Reserve, but the case settled. There the distric t judge granted an injuction, claiming that it was likely to be found that linking to an illegally posted text would be contributing to infringement, since anyone viewing the article (a little known right of a copyright holder is the right to control the display of their work) and they might save a copy or print one, making a new copy come into existence. There's no garentee that the next judge would see this the same way, however. But it does suggest that sooner or later someone else will be sued with the same argument in play. It depends on how risk adverse you are whether that makes a difference or not. That's why I argue on the ethical level that it is not good to encourage the violation of a copyright by encouraging its use. --CTSWyneken 13:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Conversion of the Jews was not a major project for him, and his 1543 booklet was not the result of embitterment but (as he himself states) Anti-Christian activity by some Jews. Can you rework the last sentence? --StanZegel (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

From what I know, he attempted to convert the Jews for more than 20 years, first by denouncing the doctrine of Servitus Judaeorum (established by Corpus Juris Civilis) - with an agenda: "so that they come over to us", "to win them over" - and until the end of his life. I don't know what "major project for him" means (major enough to write about it), but since his writings had such important influence, it was a major development in Christian-Jewish relations. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you're both correct here. Until the very end of his life, Luther did not write much about the Jews at all. On the other hand, when he does, he often mentions that kindness will help remove an obsticle to the conversion of the Jews. Late in life, there's almost all condemnation of Jews. If time permits this week, I'll search all of Luther's known works for the words Jude, Juden. (I have a free trial search of all the works of Luther, all 110+ volumes, in the original Latin and German, until the end of the year.) Does anyone know of any other terms in German, or which terms in Latin, were used by Christians to refer to the Jews? --CTSWyneken 13:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Some of English synonyms are Hebrews, Children of Israel or simply Israel, Israelites, or People of the Book. AFAIK, up until Nostra Aetate, the Christians referred to themselves as Israel or New Israel, this is also somewhat related to Jews/antisemitism as supersessionism. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What "he himself states" does not carry much weight: people always come up with excuses for their actions. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, people do self-justify. All humans do this at one time or another. Yet it is also not possible to get inside a person dead nearly 460 years. I do not know that Luther didn't hate Jews with every fiber of his being from the day of his birth, and you don't know that he didn't love them with all his heart and that all his writings are mere polemics. I think there's substantial evidence that both are wrong. So, inside his head we cannot go. What we can do is quote his actual words, read the sources to get some idea of his actions and play out what people have made of these. --CTSWyneken 13:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"Anti-Christian activity by some Jews" was a pretext, not the reason. Moreover, until some proof is shown, we should assume that it was a false pretext - knowing the status of the Jews in the 15-16 centuries Christian Europe. Besides, wasn't Judaism considered "Anti-Christian activity"? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

We don't know this either way. Again, it gets to motives. What we do know, I this I can document, is that some scholars think it was the match to the gasoline that was Luther's quick temper. Other scholars do not see it that way. It does seem that Luther was mostly event-driven with most of his polemics -- not unlike American politicians! I certainly do not excuse him for his harsh words. They are indefensible. --CTSWyneken 13:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Rework is surely possible, but I hope we are not going to justify the calls for destruction/expulsion of entire Jewish communities by blaming "some Jews" for that. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Josel of Rosheim controversy

Our article quotes Kittelson on Luther's correspondence with Josel of Rosheim: "There was no anti-Semitism in this response. Moreover, Luther never became an anti-Semite in the modern, racial sense of the term."

A brief look at 1537: The Josel Of Rosheim Controversy and our own article gives quite a different picture. I also read about it in some book recently. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't gotten this far into the article yet, so I can't get into this aspect quite yet. What I would suggest, in light of how emotional this issue is, is that we allow the scholars we quote draw conclusions from them. We should make sure that their voices are heard on all the issues. In this way, the reader can decide how they want to see the issues involved. It is all too easy to simply let Luther off the hook or assume he had no redeeming qualities. Truth is often somewhere in between. --CTSWyneken 12:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Readjusted the footnotes

For some reason the footnotes were all mixed up in this article. I have straightened them out. I think that it would be helpful for the Daniel Goldhagen block quotation to be referenced. Either referenced or not, I am not opposed to leaving it in the article. drboisclair 17:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone may want to Wikify the punctuation of the footnotes. We should be careful in adding references, so that we do not mess our nice system of footnotes in this article. drboisclair 17:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks David. I may have contributed to that mess. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Back to the Discussion of the Intro

Please forgive the repeats, but I'm having trouble finding these promising items in the midst of the sea of conversation.

Nunh-huh's Outline of the Article Proposal

The theme of the article should be "what did Luther write about Jews, how have his writings been interpreted, what motivations did he have for these writings, and what consequences have these writings had." - Nunh-huh 02:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Humus' Proposed New Intro

Martin Luther's position toward Jews is often described as "religious anti-Semitism"^[30] or "anti-Judaism"^[31]. "The basis of Luther's anti-Judaism was the conviction that ever since Christ's appearance on earth, the Jews have had no more future as Jews."^[32]. When his efforts to convert them to Christianity by what he called "Christian love" failed, he became embittered and recommended harsh persecution of the Jews.

Proposed by Humus sapiens←ну? 10:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Reposting by --CTSWyneken 21:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments re: last sentence by Stan Zagel, Humus and CTSWyneken remain above.

First sentence is good. I'd move the ref after each of the quotes and cite sources that use these exact terms. --CTSWyneken 21:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the intro needs only ^{[clickable ref. links]}, the rest goes into the Footnotes. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Still lost at sea, I've lost track of the ref for the second sentence. (I know I've seen it somewhere. --CTSWyneken 21:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The second phrase is Martin_Luther_and_the_Jews#endnote_Oberman. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I've fetched the Obermann book. (nice to work in a theological library!) The quotation is accurate. Obermann is a good scholar and his opinion is to be respected. For neatness sake, let me just note that this quotation is a summary statement of our scholar's and not directly supported by a citation. If we discover a varying view, we can add it to the body of the article.

As far as the clause goes, it is fine as far as I am concerned. I think we need something more between it and the first sentence. In the midst of a swirl of activity here, however, I'm not sure what. I'll suggest something later. --CTSWyneken 21:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the last sentence gets at part of the story. I think there's more to it than this, but I'm not exactly sure what I'd like us to say about it, however. --CTSWyneken 21:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

In addition, I think we should touch base on all the items in Nunh-Huh's suggested outline of the article. More on this score later, too. --CTSWyneken 21:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that this introduction is accurate and acceptible. I think that we should also keep Jayjg's model in mind in constructing the rest of the article: balance and NPOV as well as sources. drboisclair 00:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I hate to be the lone dissenter, but the second sentence is problematic. It ascribes a single cause to Luther's anti-Jewish positions and rhetoric, and nothing is that simple, and worse, it chooses the term "anti-Judaism" and is rather convoluted. It may make sense in its original context but "the Jews had no more future as Jews" sounds euphemistic here. It means "the Jews should have become Christians." Luther was indignant that Jews didn't become Lutherans. They had failed to join him in his battle against Catholicism, and had thereby become, in his estimation, his enemies. Since we apparently can't choose the more common term, "anti-Semitism", I suggest we use "anti-Jewish", and select something more like:

"Martin Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric and doctrines are often described as "religious anti-Semitism"[30] or "anti-Judaism"[31]. Having failed to convert the Jews to Christianity by what he called "Christian love", Luther became embittered and recommended instead their harsh persecution." - Nunh-huh 04:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This is much better than the current intro. I feel it is too cautious but if there is a consensus, I can live with something along these lines. Should we briefly say something about his influence and that his intolerance was denounced? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I can go with this also, as with what Humus proposed. I think Nunh-huh is right on as far as a single cause is too simple, and if we can find a way to clue the reader into that without being overly large (we want to introduce the article, not write the whole thing in the intro).

To me, this covers Nunh-Huh's "how have his writings been interpreted, what motivations did he have for these writings," possibly "what did Luther write about Jews." It leaves us with: " what consequences have these writings had." I think that we can probably go with something that explains that the Nazis used his words to justify their attempts at genocide. I think that much all will agree on. Barring that, we can go with citing the side that thinks Luther directly responsible for the Holocaust and those who think he was not. I prefer the former. How do others feel about this?--CTSWyneken 12:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

As a Luther scholar I disagree with Nunh-huh's "Luther was indignant that Jews didn't become Lutherans. They had failed to join him in his battle against Catholicism, and had thereby become, in his estimation, his enemies." After a study of "On the Jews and Their Lies" one can see that Luther opposed them simply because they did not become Christians and because Luther thought that they were proselytizing Christians. Luther perceived the Jews as working against Christianity, and Luther failed to do his own investigation of Judaism but accepted without question the prejudices of Burgos, Lyra, and Schlick. Luther's opposition to the papacy was based on his belief that the papacy rejected his view of the Christian gospel, not because he was trying to promote his "sect" over that of the papacy. drboisclair 18:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

One can see nothing from a study of "On the Jews and their Lies" other than why Luther said he opposed them. And when you promote your view of the Christian gospel, you're promoting your sect. Neither point has anything to do with the proposed opening, though, so why dispute them? - Nunh-huh 18:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The point that Dave is making is one of importance between Christians. It would be like saying "Tom DeLay attacked long term illegal aliens because they refuse to become Republians" when he attacks them because they did not come here legally and do not want to become Americans. To most people it would make little difference. DeLay, however, would complain endlessly for political reasons. Luther was not particularly found of the term Lutheran, although he tolerated its use. He preferred "Christian" and "Evangelical." Not that it matters re: the intro to our article, as you point out. --CTSWyneken 20:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

We should remember that we're not writing for Christians only, and try to use common terms. Using the term "Christian" and "Evangelical" might please Luther, but it wouldn't do much to distinguish his followers or otherwise convey information to most other people. And I believe the evidence does show that Tom DeLay (like most other politicians) is more than happy to predicate his position on immigration at least in part on whether he thinks the immigrant is more likely to vote Democratic or Republican!<g> - Nunh-huh 23:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I am fully aware that we are not writing for Christians only, but to say that Luther hated the Jews because they did not join him and his co-religionists against the pope is simply not true. Whatever shortcomings Luther had this was not one of them. Luther opposed the formation of the Schmalkald League in defense of the Lutheran principalities against Charles V and the pope, and Luther did not compromise his theological beliefs to join with other Protestants like Zwingli, Bucer, and Calvin against the pope. You have to remember that secondary and tertiary sources only go so far in informing us about Luther and the Reformation. Secondary sources that provide a general view of the Reformation period can also be misleading. drboisclair 00:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude. Let's concentrate on completing the intro. If we have a consensus re: CTSW's suggestion that NN's intro should be appended with something like "the Nazis used his words to justify their attempts at genocide" and "ML's intolerance was denounced", let's finalize the wording. When we are done, should the same text be used as a summary in ML article? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, let's move on. The point above was more for helping us understand each other. And, yes, I think DeLay would want only Republican leaning Mexicans to emigrate! 8-) But, back to the task at hand. If we can come to a good intro, I am very amiable to using it as the summary of the main article as well. So let's choose one of two of these to cover the majority of the text of the intro:

Intro One

Martin Luther's position toward Jews is often described as "religious anti-Semitism"^[33] or "anti-Judaism"^[34]. The basis of Luther's anti-Judaism was the conviction that ever since Christ's appearance on earth, the Jews have had no more future as Jews."^[35]. When his efforts to convert them to Christianity by what he called "Christian love" failed, he became embittered and recommended harsh persecution of the Jews. The Nazis used his words to justify their attempts at genocide.

Intro Two

Martin Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric and doctrines are often described as "religious anti-Semitism"[30] or "anti-Judaism"[31]. Having failed to convert the Jews to Christianity by what he called "Christian love", Luther became embittered and recommended instead their harsh persecution. The Nazis used his words to justify their attempts at genocide.

Discussion

I think either of these would be basically fine, but would need to be expanded a bit and adjusted a little in wording to indicate in some way that other motivations shaped Luther's rhetoric. I'd like to keep Nunh-Huh's article outline in mind as we do this. How do you all feel? --CTSWyneken 02:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the first intro is better with this modification

Martin Luther's position toward Jews is often described as "religious anti-Semitism"[33] or "anti-Judaism"[34]. The basis of Luther's anti-Judaism was the conviction that ever since Christ's appearance on earth, the Jews have had no more future as Jews."[35].

(discussion) A key reason for Luther's extending the "olive branch" was his belief that if the Jews had a chance to read and hear his new understanding that they would be converted en mass. This did not happen. drboisclair 14:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

A way to incorporate that suggestion, without incorporating the rather confusing "Jews have had no more future as Jews":

Martin Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric and doctrines are often described as "religious anti-Semitism"[30] or "anti-Judaism"[31]. Luther thought that the Jews' exposure to his own understanding of the Christian gospel would convert them, but when his efforts to convert them to Christianity failed, he became embittered and recommended harsh persecution of the Jews in his On the Jews and Their Lies (1543). The Nazis used his words in this document to justify their attempts at genocide. Since the 1980s, Lutheran organizations have begun a process of formally disassociating themselves from these writings." - Nunh-huh 21:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I favor this NH's version but instead of repeating the word "convert" would say "abondon the faith of their fathers" and replace "document" with tractate/treatise/work/pamphlet. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So:

Martin Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric and doctrines are often described as "religious anti-Semitism"[30] or "anti-Judaism"[31]. Luther thought that the Jews' exposure to his own understanding of the Christian gospel would convert them, but when his efforts to persuade them to abandon the faith of their fathers failed, he became embittered and recommended harsh persecution of the Jews in his pamphet On the Jews and Their Lies (1543). The Nazis used quotations from this tractate to justify their attempts at genocide. Since the 1980s, Lutheran organizations have begun a process of formally disassociating themselves from these writings."

- Nunh-huh 22:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Very nice work, friends. I think we're very close. All I would do is take out "begun the process of..." change "disassociating" to "dissassociated" and put "church bodies" between "Lutheran" and "organizations" in the last sentence. So, it woul look like...

Lutheran church bodies and organizations have formally disassociated themselves from these writings.

If everyone here agrees, let's ask Stan, Jayg and any others we respect to look at it. When all is done, we can move on to other things -- here and elsewhere. --CTSWyneken 00:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but "begun the process" is closer to the truth than categorical "have formally disassociated".

Could we improve the phrase "Luther thought that the Jews' exposure..."? Perhaps "Luther expected that presenting his own understanding of the Christian gospel to the Jews would convert them." ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

For the LCMS and the ELCA, at least, the disassociation is as formal as it gets (their conventions are the final authority in such matters) I think we'll find similar resolutions for most Lutheran church bodies, but I'm not sure about all. Do we have a way of saying something in between? Your sentence on Luther and presenting the gospel is good. We might want to also indicate that he showed kindness -- with this purpose. How to craft that in without indicating that many Jews would not consider such as a kindness, I'm not exactly sure. --CTSWyneken 01:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

But until all Lutheran organizations have followed suit, it's still just the beginning of a process. I would say leave it alone in the introduction and save details for later in the article. I agree that Humus's emendation on the second sentence is an improvement. - Nunh-huh 03:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

See if this version is better. It includes "Christian love":

Martin Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric and doctrines are often described as "religious anti-Semitism" or "anti-Judaism". Luther expected that presenting his own understanding of the Christian gospel to the Jews would convert them, but when his efforts to persuade the Jews to abandon the faith of their fathers with what he saw as "Christian love" failed, he became embittered and recommended harsh persecution of the Jews. Four centuries later, the Nazis used quotations from his pamphlet On the Jews and Their Lies (1543) to justify their attempts at genocide. Since the 1980s, Lutheran church bodies and organizations have begun a process of formally disassociating themselves from these writings."

←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the second sentence is fine now and probably the best we can come up with in an intro or a summary. The last is OK, although I wish we could find a way (since the two largest Lutheran bodies in the US have formally rejected Luther's venomous words) to note that. Practically speaking, the Church bodies that remain are rather small in numbers, difficult to track and it is hard to say when all of them will have formally condemned Luther's attitude and comments. If no one can think of an acceptable way to do this near Christmas and Hanukah, I'm prepared to let it go. --CTSWyneken 10:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Why "religious anti-Semitism"? He's accused simply of "anti-Semitism". What is the distinction between "religious anti-Semitism" and "anti-Judaism", anyway? They're the same thing, so you have turned a distinction into a synonym. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

True enough. Are there any objections to:

Martin Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric and doctrines are often described as "anti-Semitism" or "anti-Judaism". Luther expected that presenting his own understanding of the Christian gospel to the Jews would convert them, but when his efforts to persuade the Jews to abandon the faith of their fathers with what he saw as "Christian love" failed, he became embittered and recommended harsh persecution of the Jews. Four centuries later, the Nazis used quotations from his pamphlet On the Jews and Their Lies (1543) to justify their attempts at genocide. Since the 1980s, Lutheran church bodies and organizations have begun a process of formally disassociating themselves from these writings."

? - Nunh-huh 17:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no objections to the text as it stands in Nunh-huh's text above. I do think we need to cite (not quote. save that for the body of the text). one of the folk who maintain the anti-semitic and one of the folk who maintain the anti-judaic position, however.

Jayg, is this intro fine from your viewpoint, save the correction you noted? --CTSWyneken 20:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This text works for me. Should we simply say "the Nazis used his pamphlet On the Jews and Their Lies (1543) to justify..." instead of "...used quotations from..."? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 21:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That sounds fine, as would "cited his pamphlet"... - Nunh-huh 22:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

"cited" is even better. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The above paragraph seems reasonable to me, at first glance, at least. However, I have not been following this discussion for some time and hesitate to weigh in; I'd like to know what Jayjg thinks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Nunh-Huh's changes are fine. As I think about it, though, "pamphlet" is a bit misleading. Formally, we call this kind of thing a "treatise" but "book" would work better for our audience, I think. If I don't post again before Monday, my wishes for a joyful Hanukah to my Jewish fellow editors, a blessed Nativity celebration for my Christian fellow editors and a happy holiday for our non-religious fellow editors and to all a safe, happy and prosperous New Year. --CTSWyneken 10:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Does the work not refer to itself as a "pamphet"? : "they will learn from this pamphlet what the Jews are and how to handle them and that they ought not to be protected." Merry Christmas! - Nunh-huh 14:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll grant that the translation terms it this way and it's not really importnat enough to check the German. --CTSWyneken 15:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I approve of the progress that is being made on this paragraph. It appears to be balanced and NPOV. "Treatise" would be the "scholar's choice" but "book" is somewhat inaccurate for a treatise that is not very long. Pamphlet is OK drboisclair 14:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy holidays to all! It's great that we've been able to reach a compromise and consensus after this arduous discussion. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Intro Three

Building upon the shoulders of giants, I favor this version of intro:

Martin Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric and doctrines are often described as anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism. Luther recognizing that a millennium of Christian persecution of the Jews was not completely effective in achieving their conversion initially suggested the use of a gentler approach in his essay, “That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew.” However, when his efforts to persuade the Jews to abandon the faith of their fathers with what he saw as "Christian love" failed, he reverted to antisemtic libels and recommended the total persecution of the Jews. Buoyed by four more centuries of Christian antisemitism following Luther, the Nazis used his treatise On the Jews and Their Lies (1543) to rally Christians in support of their genocidal programs. Since the 1980s, some Lutheran church bodies and organizations have begun a process of formally disassociating themselves from certain aspects of these writings.

Luther recognizing that a millennium of Christian persecution of the Jews was not completely effective in achieving their conversion initially suggested the use of a gentler approach in his essay, “That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew.” Support for this view comes from Luther himself in “That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew,” and not merely from secondary sources of apologists. I quote, “If we wish to help them, we must practice on them not the papal law, … so that they gain the reason and opportunity to be with and among us and to see and to hear our Christian teaching and life.

Also, I do not agree with the following intro sentence since it obfuscates the Christian milieu, deeply entrenched with antisemitism, that gave rise to BOTH Luther’s and the Nazis treatment of the Jews with widespread support from Christian populations.

Four centuries later, the Nazis used quotations from his pamphlet On the Jews and Their Lies (1543) to justify their attempts at genocide.

The sentence makes it seem like it just popped-up from nowhere after 400 years, whereas the undisputed historical reality is that Luther’s contributions to the long and continuing march of Christian antisemitism had been entrenched in the culture.

--Doright 20:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This paragraph is POV and unobjective. It is loaded with biased judgment, and I believe unscholarly for Wikipedia. Tell it like it is but don't color it with bias. Luther's doctrines or his interpretations of the Bible are Christian, and if the user feels that that is sufficient to make him an anti-Semite in his view, then that is his opinion. We need to be mutually understanding of each other's faiths. This statement of the previous poster: "Four centuries later, the Nazis used quotations from his pamphlet On the Jews and Their Lies (1543) to justify their attempts at genocide" betrays an inaccuracy. Luther did not propose killing Jews at all. "On the Jews and Their Lies" proposes expelling them from German land, not killing them. Luther opposed Jews because they were not Christian and because HE THOUGHT they were proselytizing and defaming Christ and Mary. Because Luther wanted to convert them shows that he was indifferent to their race or ethnicity whatever that might have been. For the Nazis there was no final solution other than murdering Jews. For Luther he wanted them converted or expelled. There is a world of difference here. Let's put aside the hatred and be more objective. drboisclair 20:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Since the current introduction came by working together between four editors and since we all agreed that it was the best we can come up with and remain neutral, I oppose changing it in any way, especially in the recommendation above, which biases the intro towards one point of view among the scholars quoted in the balance of the article. Should we include this additional, POV, we would have to cite it and add the other with citation. Frankly, I would rather get on with balance of this article and then get on with other things. --CTSWyneken 01:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I am biased, but I find the current intro more neutral and closer to hard cold facts supported by reputable quotes. But our opinions/emotions are irrelevant, we should let serious historians speak. The consensus is ML did not call for a Nazi-style genocide, so I would like to avoid expression "total persecution". ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Applying Nunh-Huh's Outline to the Article

I'd like to rearrange the balance of the article according to Nunh-Huh's outline. Does this sound like a good idea to all? --CTSWyneken 18:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur. drboisclair 21:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

What would that entail? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

For easy reference, here's the outline proposal again:

The theme of the article should be "what did Luther write about Jews, how have his writings been interpreted, what motivations did he have for these writings, and what consequences have these writings had." - Nunh-huh 02:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

As I look at the article in light of the outline, the intro and section on Luther's writings and actions are fine, although we may want to pay some attention to being sure that it is a complete record. Humus' expansion of the quote of Luther's recommendations for the persecution of the Jews is an example of this. I think we're missing some of the kinder statements of earlier years, as well as the story leading up to the venom of his later years, but that's for later.

I think I would subdivide the third section. One section would be a narrative of the reaction of Luther's contemporaries, the effects during the next few centuries and then the Nazi use of his work. Another would be the interpretation of various scholars and finally, the efforts of Lutheran -- and perhaps other church bodies and religions -- to condemn these words.

Sound like a plan? --CTSWyneken 12:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable in principle; however, I am concerned that this not become a whitewash. As it is, the quotes suggesting that Luther's writings were anti-semitic have been reduced to almost nothing, whereas those asserting that he was anti-Judaic are lengthy. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Balance is the key as well as objectivity and the absence of slanted rhetoric that is proposed above in "intro three". drboisclair 21:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's err on the side of including every relevant quote from all scholarly viewpoints. We then can reduce them by eliminating redundancy. I'll wait for at least Humus to catch up with us before I do anything substantitive. --CTSWyneken 00:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Jayjg on this. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's work together on it, then. Since we have folk interested in telling the story from two of the pespectives, and since we're committed to being scholarly about it, I'm confident we can manage this. In my book, the intro was the hardest part. --CTSWyneken 03:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Expansion of Luther's Recommendations Quote

Dear Humus:

I think the expansion is fine, but I have one question: do you know if the words fall within the page range we've cited, or should I check the reference? For some reason, this work is still on my desk at work in the library. 8-) --CTSWyneken 12:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know for sure. I cited the same online source (fordham) because the link was removed, so the context is not lost. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Next week when I'm back from vacation, I'll double-check the pagination. --CTSWyneken 03:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

New outline added to article

I've added the headings to the main article. Please take a look, fellow editors, and see what you think. --CTSWyneken 21:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the addition of these headings is helpful. One must be able to show what Luther actually held and what others say he held. drboisclair 13:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Category

The category Category:Anti-Semitic people is for persons, 'Martin Luther and the Jews' is not a person. Put the cattag on the article about Martin Luther. --Yooden

Reference Checks

D. G. Meyers

I've been unable to get into H-net this morning to check and complete the reference to the newly added quotation. I was, however, able to verify that D. G. Meyers is a professor teaching Holocaust Studies at Texas A & M. Will try again later. --CTSWyneken 14:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge Suggestion

Several editors have suggested the Article On the Jews and Their Lies duplicates the discussion here and very little in it is not discussed here. I suggest we merge it to the discussion here on the the pamphlet.--CTSWyneken 15:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a good idea and a saving of webspace. Go for it. drboisclair 17:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Do not merge. First you claim original research, then when references are provided you claim that the references do not support the writer (even after you admit that you have not even read the writer), then you demand only direct quotes be used and then when direct quotes are used, you propose eliminating the article entirely. Perhaps you would like to eliminate the article on Mein_kampf too? Both are recognized as essential texts in the history of antisemitism. Perhaps, if you stopped censoring material in the article Talk:On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies#Censorship from scholars that do not conform to the Lutheran POV, the article could properly develop. Shouldn't this discussion be taking place on the talk page of the article that you are trying to eliminate? One can read there some of your repeated and documented attempts at censorhsip and how this merge proposal is merely a transparent continued attempt in that direction. There's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions.Doright 18:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The material here in this article defines the Luther writing in question. The material that has been placed in the special, separate article had only dealt with contemporary reaction to the document. It is to be hoped that objective and calmer voices will prevail. drboisclair 13:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

There should obviously be a separate article on On the Jews and Their Lies, since it is an important historical work. The Martin Luther and the Jews article deals with more than just that one work by Luther. That said, the On the Jews and Their Lies article needs to be significantly expanded, so that it deals with the contents of the book, when it was published, reactions to it, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's so obvious, but do not have a problem with an article on this work in principle. I've tried searches for other famous and infamous books in wikipedia, and see that entries exist for them, even a number of Luther's works. This is a new concept for me, since I've not looked for book reviews and discussions in encyclopedias before. Do you have a few favorite, well done articles of this sort in wikispace?

The catch with this work is that the initial editor used it to provide an exaggerated, one-sided, linked to infinging sites, loosely cited POV. When attempts have been made to modify this, abuse laden prose was unleashed on the talk page. When challenged to start over, the editor did not respond well. The result duplicates the content of the section of this article. If this is not corrected, my recommendation stands. If the folks who worked on this article with me in good faith will come over to summing up this vile book and work there, too, I can be content not to merge. --CTSWyneken 00:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example of a well written article on a similar kind of book: Mein Kampf. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll look it up. Are there others? I'm trying to get an idea if there is something like common practice on book articles. --CTSWyneken 11:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Another article on a similar work is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I second the merge. The content in On the Jews and their Lies is directly related to Luther and his relationship with the Jews, as is much of the information duplicated in the article. Aiden 19:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

A proper article on the book would contain much information that would be irrelevant to this topic; see the other examples provided. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that merging would be a great way to save people time looking for things on the web and cross-referencing. This would also cut back on time spent editing 2 pages, and it would help cut down on contradictions.

Copyright of Martin Luther's Works Topic Updated

Fellow editors:

I've put all the current information on the copyright of Martin's Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies into the copyright topic page. For future reference, I'll put anything new I discover there and will answer questions about the status of this and other works at that location. --CTSWyneken 16:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Who Died and made you King, Please Stop deleting links to other Scholars Works

This is your POV. The scholars responsible for the content of this widely cited and respected web resource at this world renown university clearly does not agree with your opinion. They say, "This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history." [[36]] You have already stated that you had previously contacted them and shared your opinion with them. And, they have not complied with your demands. Nor should we. Who died and made you king? It is improper for you to block access to this important historical document. Please respect the opinion of scholars that do not agree with you. Furthermore, the publisher is fully capable of directly contacting Fordham University or us if he agrees with your opinion. Respectfully, please stop censoring.Doright 22:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sir, beware your continual Appeals to Authority (i.e., "this widely cited and respected web resource at this world renown university"). This is bad argumentation, and does nothing to further your point. You may or may not have a valid point; it is, however, hard to pull anything other than, "I say this, you say that, and you are wrong", out of your comments. The viewpoint you bring to the discussion is important --- do that viewpoint justice by giving valid, well-defended, well-written argumentation. -Rekleov 22:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

See copyright topic page where the case is laid out. I am doing what I would do as a person responsible for copyright at my own institution. Since WP:COPY sets a policy of not linking to infringing works, I can do nothing other than delete such links.

As a librarian, let me also share that this work is available in the American Edition of Luther's Works, sets of which are available in almost every large library in the country. Interlibrary loan should be very easy. Simply because a work is not online does not mean it can't be read. --CTSWyneken 23:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

One wonders about the manner in which one can hide behind one's anonymity in order to clamor for their POV. Ours is POV simply because we have identified ourselves. If one is unknown, then they do not have the burden of being NPOV. This is posted bemusedly in satire. drboisclair 23:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course I appeal to authority given by the Fordham University Center for Medieval Studies and their scholars responsible for The Internet Medieval Sourcebook. [[37]] THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU. Get over it. You may or may not have a valid point, but obviously those scholars have come to a different conclusion than you. Collectively, you all, on the other hand appeal to your own authority (e.g., I'm a librarian and I'm the Pope) and ad hominem attacks here (e.g., it doesn't matter that scholars at Fordham do not agree with you because this wikipedian has not provided you access to her personal information). "This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history." Furthermore, the publisher is fully capable of directly contacting Fordham University Center for Medieval Studies, if he agrees with your opinion.Doright 00:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Fordham does not have a position on this issue at all. They are a host for the Medieval Sourcebook. So they neither agree or disagree. Please read the other talk pages, as suggested, where I have repeatedly stated this. The statement in the On the Jews file is Dr. Paul Halsall's. I have been attempting to contact him, so far with no success. It appears he is between positions at the moment. So, I do not know at all what he will say. Simply because someone says such a thing on the internet does not mean its true. Anyone is welcome to do the same work I have to verify these facts. --CTSWyneken 01:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous editor is like a sniper in a tree top, taking pot shots at those trying to do serious work on the ground, and dropping his waste matter into the work in progress. I'm not sure that anything such a person attempts to add is worth verifying but should be summarily deleted on the basis that a responsible person would identify himself. If the material is truly worthy, a responsible scholar will get around to adding it. In the present case, I believe we are dealing with a sock puppet for an editor who has been banned previously for similar activity and may be on probation right now. If so, that probation is being violated, and keeping his edits or wasting time on his "contributions" simply enables continuing violations.--StanZegel (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The virtually anonymous editor strikes again

Maybe we should debate about whether or not we want the quote in the article. It is in the document in question.drboisclair 10:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

We are all anonymous here, Dr. Even if were to edit using what we say are real names, there's no way to verify that they are. We had a case of an editor blocked recently claiming to be a known real-life person, but who had simply assumed the identity. What we become known for is our edits, and the more of them we have, the less anonymous we become, in terms of Wikipedia. Your comments, and particularly Stan's above, about another editor are inappropriate. Please concentrate only on content. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Madam, not wanting to be like the child that tells his Mum that his brother or sister is doing something wrong all the time. I think that User:Doright deserves to take into consideration your admonition as much as we do. If you are objective, you will look at some of the things he has posted against us. With respect, drboisclair 10:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of who has said what about whom, Mum recommends starting with a clean slate and concentrating only on content, with no attempt to whitewash Luther or to attack him unnecessarily. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Madam, that is all I seek, and I will endeavor to take your wise advice. Cordially, drboisclair 10:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Why the Doright insertion is unbalanced

Dear SlimVirgin, I believe that this quotation is unbalanced for the reasons stated by User:CTSWyneken has stated in "Need for Arbitration" subsection of Talk:Martin Luther. I believe that User:Doright is pushing his POV by including this particular quotation. There is debate as to what Luther means here. Granted that his words are indefensible, yet they need to be taken in context. I believe that either the quote should be omitted or more alternative view quotations need to be resupplied. IMHO, we should revert it to what it was previously, but I will not revert against an administrator unless there is more of a compelling reason. Respectfully, drboisclair 12:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Dr, I'm here as an editor, not as an admin, but I appreciate your not reverting. I suggest we have this discussion on Talk:Martin Luther, so as not to split up the comments. I'll post something there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"Harsh persecution," begs the question. What was the "harsh persecution?" Please provide your list, although I think it would be better if we just used Luther's own list and words.Doright 19:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a moot point as the quotation in question now is in the article. It doesn't have to be in the introduction. drboisclair 19:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It is only moot to he who is deaf. Again, for the 7th time, What was the "harsh persecution?" Did "harsh persecution?" include "slaying?"Doright 19:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)"

Beginning once again

I have united the Luther quotation with its context in the section on "On the Jews and Their Lies." See comments on the Martin Luther talk page. I'm open to renegotiating the phrase harsh persecution, if one can be found that takes into account what all scholars are saying about Luther's words. I believe it does that. --CTSWyneken 15:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There, now the quotation is included in this article which deals with Luther and the Jews in extenso. The quotation does not have to be included in the main article. Let this matter be hereby resolved. drboisclair 16:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's going to solve it. I mean no disrespect, but it does look as though (a) you've taken ownership of these pages, which is not allowed, and (b) you're determined to either delete or at least downplay that quote. We're not supposed to act as advocates for any particular position. I wish one of you would explain exactly what is wrong with the quote, now that we have the context, which I've also asked on Talk:Martin Luther. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Very briefly the problem is confusing over-the-top, polemical rhetoric with a serious proposal. For example, if James Carville, at the end of a late October political rally were to say: "Now get out there and kill those Republicans!" no one would assume that he was urging assassinations. Placing these words alone in the intro or the summary creates the impression that Luther was urging genocide.

Looking at this Reading in its context, you will note that at one moment, Luther says, exile them, another moment kill them, yet another moment, we must not take vengence, yet another, show harsh mercy, and at the very end he is still praying for the conversion of the Jews. Reading all this, which is indeed a hateful, vile and horrid set of prose, the conclusion of a number of scholars is that he did not intend to recommend killing all Jews or Jews randomly. Luther's actions in trying to get measures actually enacted against the Jews, according to some scholars, reinforces this. He pursued the infamous 8 points and exile, but not the actual killing of Jews for being Jews. (I can document this) Putting in the quote without this explaination leads the reader to assume he was indeed making such a suggestion. So, if the quote goes into the intro, the opinion of these scholars needs to be heard there, too. If their opinion is heard, then it would be unfair not to quote Dr. Michael, who believes the opposite. Fairly soon it all grows. That is why I favor retaining the summary and the intro as negotiated and placing all of this in the body of the "Martin Luther and the Jews" article. --CTSWyneken 17:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

With respect may I say that we understand that we do not own these pages, they are owned by Wikipedia. We have a little bit of a guardianship sentiment because they are like our children. We put a lot of time and love into the crafting of these articles. For some of us these few articles are what we work on because we have expertise in them. We have great pride in this online free resource. The problem we have stems from one single editor, who is new to Wikipedia, who does not want to consult with others in making changes. If that editor wanted to put this quotation in, why doesn't he have the courtesy of consulting with the rest of us and compromise? Yes, he has the right to edit as he sees fit. Yes, the quotes are correct although the one in contention is quoted out of context. The manner of the set up here invites anonymous editing, and as was pointed out "all of us are anonymous": that is a good thing. I personally like the idea of editing from a broad range of people throughout the world, making Wikipedia a living community of knowledge. We are in the tradition of the founding encyclopedist Diderot. But, I would ask that the novice have a little more respect for editors who have been around. I admit that I should have been more respectful of you. I do not think that it is in the best of behavior for an editor on a talk page to put up a topic something like: "Who made you king or pope" while accusing veteran editors of misconduct. I know we need to concern ourselves with the subject matter in question. And as to the quotation in contention: it is now a moot point because the quotation now appears in this article. I know this, but the conduct of some editors hinders the free flow of consultation. I am 50 years old, so I do not want to come across as a wrangling youngster here, but the behavior of a particular editor is hindering work on these articles. Cordially, drboisclair 18:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Luther Denial Like Holocaust Denial is ahistorical at best, but censorship is worse

One can absurdly, as some have, deny that Luther meant what he said, but you can not censor Luther's own words. Nor can one deny how others have understood his words and incorporated their meaning into a culture of antisemitism which among other things produced the Holocaust.

Most of the Luther denial arguments presented by wikipedians here seem to fall into 3 categories: red herrings, straw man and with increasing frequency ad hominem. For example, The antisemitism versus anti-judaism run around. Anti-Judaism is opposition to the Jewish religion (Judaism) and those who practice it. This oppositon may be of varying degrees of intensity — sometimes expressed in discrimination and hostility. Often the term is used as a euphemism for anti-Semitism. The definition of "antisemitism" in Merriam-Webster Dictionary patently includes anti-Judaism: "is hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group."[1] According to this definition anti-Judaism is a specific form of anti-Semitism.

Either the sub-article "Luther and the Jews" should be returned to "Luther and antisemitism" and the off-topic material removed OR the redirect should be taken off so that a separate article by that title exclusively and explicitly addressing the issue of Luther and antisemitism can be written.

The following may provide some helpful insight into the problem my fellow wikipedians are experiencing. I copied it from here[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drboisclair/Archive01/#Repy_to_above ]

I fully agree with you, as do apparently all scholars of antisemitism that On the Jews and Their Lies is Antisemitic. Furthermore, apparently no scholar denies there are distinctions that can be made between the modal antisemitsm of Luther’s 16th century Germany, 19th Century Germany and Hitler’s 20th Century Germany and today. If you are aware of any scholars that deny such a distinction or any wikipedians that deny such a distinction, I will be indebted to you for bringing their work to my attention. Since there is in fact no debate about this, it is difficult to understand this other than as a red herring.

However, your phrase “that of the present day extending from the 19th Century” belies your POV for which there is apparently no scholarly support. That is, you imply that antisemitism of the “present day” and of Hitler’s Germany “extends from the 19th Century” deus ex machina. That is, you imply that whatever antisemitism is today, it only has its roots as deep as and common character with that of the 19th century. Furthermore, you deny that antisemitism of 19th century Germany is connected (causally or otherwise) to the antisemitism expressed by Luther’s 16th Century Germany.

Now, responding to my question, “Do you agree that On the Jews and Their Lies does attempt to "annihilate" Judaism and does attempt to physically eliminate the Jews,” you say you think I am “begging the question” and say that “You have to limit yourself to what the person actually writes.” Well here are a few quotations from Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies also cited by another scholar, Dr Michael, where he says Luther is calling for “mass murder” of the Jews.

Here are Dr Michael’s impeccable credentials [[38]] Dr. Michael says Luther “urged mass murder of Jews.” The below material is directly quoted from Dr. Michael where he repeatedly says “Luther clearly stated that all Jews should be murdered.”

“In "On the Jews and Their Lies," Luther clearly stated that all Jews should be murdered. (emphasis added) "We are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them." Hans Hillerbrand, "Martin Luther and the Jews," in James Charlesworth, ed., Jews and Christians (New York 1990), 132.

Luther implored the German princes to follow a cruel policy, actually carried out four hundred years later by a modern German "prince," Adolf Hitler. Both Luther and Hitler advocated the destruction of Jewish religious culture, the abrogation of legal protection, expropriation, forced labor, and expulsion of the politically defenseless Jews. Luther also urged mass murder of Jews.” (emphasis added)

Luther's program for the Jews asked the princes three times to kill Jews who resisted. (emphasis added) His third and fourth steps mention "pain of death" and "pain of loss of life and limb." His fifth step advises the authorities to deprive the Jews of safe passage once they have left their ghettos. Another passage of "On the Jews and Their Lies" indicates that Luther saw the necessity of killing at least some of the Jews: "I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people . . .. They must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish. [They are a] people possessed . . .." “

“A sermon of 1539 argued that "I cannot convert the Jews. Our Lord Jesus Christ did not succeed in doing it. But I can stop up their mouths so that they will have to lie upon the ground." The language is ambiguous, but it implies a death threat. The imprecise language allowed people of good will to believe that outright murder was not being proposed, while at the same time this kind of language permitted them to "speak about the unspeakable," the mass murder of Jews.” (emphasis added)

ref: Martin Luther. Dr. Robert Michael, h-antisemitism 25 May 1994.

As demonstrated above, it is Luther’s own writings that say to kill the Jews. It appears to me that you should consider your own advice. “You have to limit yourself to what the person actually writes. You have to be more disinterested … .”

I think it would have been better if you had stopped with the above. However, again exposing the pathos underlying your POV, you go on to attack me personally. You suggest that I am attempting to “satisfy a vendetta against Luther.” While I did not initially understanding what that vendetta might be, you go on to make it clear by attempting to label me as a Jew using the codes of a “Torah” reference and “Shalom.” You then imply that is the explanation for why it would be my mission “to completely trash what great men [Luther] were and did.” Is it an expression of antisemitism to suggest today’s Jews have a such an irrational vendetta? Why conclude that I’m Jewish? Then you go on to say, “We must steer clear of jumping to conclusions like: Luther is a Hitler or that Luther proposes an ethnic cleansing model as did Hitler.” I guess this is more of the reason for the Jewish Vendetta while denying the similarities between and connections to 16th and 20th century antisemitism.

Here are quotes directly from Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies:

So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite an their murdering, … . “What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us . . .”

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb.

Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews.

Sixth, I advise … that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them ….

They must be driven from our country.

Plus, this is what the translator and editors of “Luther’s Works” add as a footnote to their translation regarding what they called “Luther’s proposals.”

Most of Luther's proposals are paralleled in the other anti-Jewish literature of the period, but the specific formulation which follows may be attributed to him. Fortunately, as has been noted above (p. 135), most of the authorities proved unwilling to carry out his recommendations, whether out of horror at their inhumanity or out of self-interest (since Jews played an important role in the economy). It is impossible to publish Luther's treatise today, however, without noting how similar to his proposals were the actions of the National Socialist regime in Germany in the 1930's and 1940's. On the night of November 9-10, 1938, the so-called Kristallnicht, for example, 119 synagogues in all parts of Germany, together with many Jewish homes and shops, were burned to the ground (cf. William H. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960), 430 ff.). In subsequently undertaking the physical annihilation of the Jews, however, the Nazis surpassed even Luther's severity.

[[39]]

You repeatedly admonish against “jumping to conclusions.” However, IMHO, we must steer clear of denying the simple truth that Luther wrote these things and what the words meant. For example, when Luther writes, “They must be driven from our country,” the conclusion you claim I “jump to” is that Luther said, they must be driven from our country. There is clearly no jump. It seems rather that it is your POV that is jumping to conclude that Luther’s words mean something other than what he wrote. The translator and editors of Luther’s Works call these “LUTHER’S PROPOSALS.”

And, since you bring up the question of ethnic cleansing, perhaps you would be kind enough to point out the essential difference between the definition of ethnic cleansing and “LUTHER’S PROPOSALS.”

Finally, I remind you of the warning you have already received from at least one wikipedia administrator:

“Do not turn this into a Jewish versus Lutheran thing. What matters is Wikipedia policies and our compliance with them: NOR, NPOV, and accurate articles.”

I think it’s good advice.Doright 06:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, but not surprisingly, you do not address the evidence I bothered, in good faith, to provide you. Instead of addressing the veracity of my argument, you regress to purely personal attack. This is exactly what you seem to do on the Luther related pages. I'm not inclined to respond to your additional self-serving chest beating. However, If you have a well reasoned response to my above argument regarding the Luther related material. I will continue to respond in good faith. Otherwise, have a nice dayDoright 06:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Doright 19:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr Doright, you accuse me of making ad hominem accusations against you when I am merely reacting to your own accusations against me. I have to admit that my knowledge of Antisemitism has grown through the interactions here on Wikipedia and for that I am indebted to others. When I spoke of the 19th Century as the terminus a quo of Antisemitism (when it started) I meant the idea of race. I agree and I am coming to agree more that Antisemitism was also present since the beginning of our Common Era, and even before if you consider Haman and Esther. If you took it that I meant that there was no Antisemitism before the 19th Century, then I have not made myself clear. I am speaking about the "race theory" thing that, of course, is a form of Antisemitism.

What is problematic here is your presuming to sit in judgment on me and others due to your supposed superior knowledge on the subject. You are doing the very things that you accuse us of doing, but you do it to the extreme. Perhaps you could tell us what gives you the right to judge me in this fashion? You are new to Wikipedia: why can't you learn to listen and consult. You accuse us of pushing our POV when you are blind to your own actions of pushing your own POV. It is difficult to communicate with you when you belittle people as you have belittled me in your ad nauseam rehash of this. Dr. Robert Michael is just one source among many. He too has a POV in this matter. That is how he reads Luther. I respect his opinion, and I think that he has some credibility. Is there a published source for his opinion? other than an unjuried web discussion group on the internet?

Mr. Doright, if you are a fledgling professor or a student, you need to learn scholarly etiquette. You may be operating within your rights as an editor, but you are uncivil and presumptuous. You hinder the discussion of this material by your continuous attacks. If we call in question your behavior we are so provoked, so please stop your ad hominem attacks.

I call for arbitration to this problem. drboisclair 19:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

I do not think that we are guilty of censorship of data--the quotation in contention IS IN THE ARTICLE, READ IT IF YOU PLEASE. As you can see from the "slaying quotation" quoted as Mr. Doright would quote it supports his and Dr. Michael's POV that Luther proposed genocide like Hitler. If you read the quotation in context, you can come out with a different conclusion. Again, it is in the article without the POV of Mr. Doright. drboisclair 19:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Did Luther recommend the killing of the Jews?

Dear Friends:

In the flurry of discussion on the Martin Luther page, we began to gather scholarly opinion on whether or not Luther recommended killing the Jews or whether or not it was just rhetoric. Because this topic applies very directly here and it is easily lost on that talk page, I would like to report on my research into this question here. Please feel free to add evidence here. I would prefer, however, keeping our interpretation of the evidence out of this section and wait a week or so before commenting. I'll begin as time permits over the next few days. --CTSWyneken 12:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Martin H. Bertram

Martin H. Bertram. "Introduction (One the Jews and Their Lies)." in Luther's Works in Luther's Works Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971)

"Indeed, one hardly knows whether to be more astonished at the crudity of Luther's language here or at the cruelty of his proposals: let their synagogues be burnt, their houses razed, their prayerbooks seized, let them be reduced to a condition of agrarian servitude, and - as a "final solution" -- let them be expelled from the country." (Bertram, 135)--CTSWyneken 14:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Martin Brecht

Martin Brecht, Martin Luther 3 vols. tr. James Schaaf. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993, 3:341-346

Brecht spends five pages summarizing and analyzing On the Jews He does not mention the passage from On the Jews quoted above. He does, however, say: "What Luther really intended was the expulsion of the Jews, not their deaths." (Brecht, 3:344)

--CTSWyneken 16:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

= Hans Hillerbrand

“In "On the Jews and Their Lies," Luther clearly stated that all Jews should be murdered. "We are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them." Hans Hillerbrand, "Martin Luther and the Jews," in James Charlesworth, ed., Jews and Christians (New York 1990), 132. (from talk. Will verify when book arrives via ILL) Book arrived. Author is not Michael. Is Hillerbrand. Full verification pending --CTSWyneken 15:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Mark U. Edwards

Mark U. Edwards. Luther's Last Battles Ithaca, NY: Cornell Universiity Press, 1983.

"For racial Anti-Semitism religious belief is largely irrelevant...Scholars who point this out are not condoning religious anti-Semitism. They are only pointing out that the logic of religious anti-Semitism leads to attempts at conversion, not to genocide." (Edwards, 139)--CTSWyneken 21:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Richard Marius

Richard Marius. Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.

"Luther never organized any campaign against the Jews, and, as Heiko Oberman has said, despite the ferocity of his tirades against them he never truly renounced the notion of coexistence between Jews and Christians. But the fact that Luther's hostility to Jews was not the same as modern anti-Semitism does not excuse it. It was as bad as Luther could make it, and was bad enough to leave a legacy that had hateful consequences for centuries." (Marius, 380)--CTSWyneken 20:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Martin Marty

Martin Marty. Martin Luther: A Penguin Life New York: Lipper/Viking Book, 2004.

"Fearing chaos as always, Luther did not urge Christian citizens to take matters into their own hands against their Jewish neighbors. Instead and in character, he called on civil authorities to banish Jews...While urging the people not to avenge themselves, he did want them to stir up their rulers and join in the calls for these leaders to burn synagogues along with the books of rabbis and even their homes, lest rabbis would change venues and find other places to teach blasphemy. If Jew would not respond to mercy by using the time given them to convert, he declared that Christians must drive them out like mad dogs lest they be damned alongside Jews."(Marty,172-173)--CTSWyneken 20:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Graham Noble

Graham Noble. "Martin Luther and German Anti-Semitism." History Review (2002) no. 42:1-2.

No matter that [Luther] sought, in his own terms, to save the Jews not to exterminate them, that he had no notion of the pseudo-scientific eugenics which underpinned Nazi anti-Semitism, or that he depreciated physical violence against them -- Martin Luther offered in his writings a historical and intellectual justification for the Holocaust, which the Nazis took pains to exploit." (Noble, 2).--CTSWyneken 16:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Elliot Rosenberg

Elliot Rosenberg. But Were They Good For the Jews? Secaucus, NJ: Carol Publishing Group, 1997. He does not refer to the "slaying" text, but says this about the work:

Luther was clearly not a man who suffered rebuke. By the 1540s, Jews were "venomous and virulent," "thieves and brigands," and "disgusting vermin." His 1544 pamphlet "Concerning the Jews and Their Lies" set forth a comprehensive program for dealing with them: Set their synagogue on fire, and whatever does not burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt so that no man may ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it... Their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed... They shall be put under one roof, or in a stable, like gypsies, in order that they may realize they are not masters in our land, as they boast, but miserable captives... They should be deprived if their prayer-books and Talmuds... Their Rabbis must be forbidden to teach under the threat of death." (Rosenberg, 66) --CTSWyneken 17:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Gordon Rupp

Gordon Rupp Martin Luther: Hitler's Cause -- or Cure? London: Lutterworth Press, 1945

"But, as the reader will remember, the fighting of a civil war does not equal beheading of Anabaptists, nor does that equal the exile of Jews, which Luther demanded. Where is the evidence that Luther demanded a pogrom or wholesale executions?" (Rupp, 76)

"Luther was not recommending personal violence." (Rupp, 78-79).

"It all falls very far short of the Nazi anti-semitism with its doctrine of Race, with its mass extermination." (Rupp, 79) --CTSWyneken 12:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Luther's Letter to Spalatin

A reference to or quotation from this letter is certainly appropriate. The citation, however, should be to the printed edition of Luther's Works, and not the online version, which is likely infringing. In the morning, I will locate the letter in Luther's Works and restore the quotation from it. --CTSWyneken 02:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Having checked it, I have discovered that the Luther to Spalatin letter is already in the article. The quotation from Halsall is problematic, since it leads to an infringing work and is from an unjuried source. I will keep my eyes peeled for another source for the same point of view and will include it in the section on the scholarly interpretation of Luther's words. If anyone knows of such a source, perhaps Dr. Michael, please feel free to add it. --CTSWyneken 15:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Robert Michael Summary

I have verified the summary to Robert Michael's "Luther, Luther Scholars, and the Jews," edited the text to reflect that the summary is his viewpoint, removed language not used by Michael and inserted it into the appropriate section in the main article. --CTSWyneken 15:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a photocopy of the article by Dr. Michaels in hand. The words removed do not appear in the article, nor does the capsule biography, which does not belong in this article, in any case. A separate article for Dr. Michael is warranted, as has been done for other scholars cited here. --CTSWyneken 03:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with the material you deleted, exactly? And can you please explain why you placed the neutrality tag on Martin Luther after agreeing to the text? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

First, let me note that I actually restored this quotation, deleted by another user.

On the issue itself, I will answer more fully if you'd like later. Briefly, to verify the selection entered, I went to the cited journal, found Dr. Michael's article, photocopied it and read it. None of the words in our entry are in the article proper. My guess is that they came from a summary in another publication. Thus we have a "cited in" situation not at all clear from our passage nor from the citation. It is better to summarize Dr. Michael or quote him directly to avoid a "so-and-so sumarizes Dr. Michael as saying that..."

A phrase accusing Luther scholars of a variety scholarly crimes is nowhere to be found. In addition, even though Dr. Michael feels strongly about the topic, he is as careful and generous in this article as he is elsewhere. Therefore, I deleted the words, since they did not have anything to add to the point he was making. I also added phrases like 'Dr. Michael said,' 'Michael states' to make clear it was his opinion.

The citation was to the article by Dr. Michael and was in error. In addition, it contained a capsule bio, which belongs in its own article. I corrected the citation and eliminated the capsule bio.

I put the neutrality flag up because the text, as it stands on the page, does not reflect the Luther scholar's opinion that time has not allowed me to add. I hope to add that by Monday, if the weekend allows. --CTSWyneken 10:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Coleague, Photocopies are great, but online verifiability is something all wikipedians have immediate access to. With all due respect, we are to present the view of others here, not our own. Your modifications to the Michael article do not match that which is readily verifiable to anyone with an internet connection. You will note that my selection is identical to that which you can obtain from the The Felix Posen Bibliographic Project on Antisemitism Demonization of the Jew and

the Jew as Other Database at The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Alternatively, just google the Michael reference and you can get it. Or, click here and search the page for "Michael, Robert" [[40]]. You will notice that I added exactly ZERO words. Again, the articles are to contain the views of others, not our own.

Regarding the capsule biography, as I have provided you now for the 3rd time, you can obtain it here [[41]]

Collegially,Doright 04:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Halsall Quote from Infringing Source

Dear SlimVirgin:

The Halsall quote comes from the infringing source. I have documented this infringement in the copyright subpage of the Martin Luther article. A link to another Halsall quote is certainly fine, if that page is not infringing. The present link violates WP:COPY. --CTSWyneken 11:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You are saying this is a copyright issue, but can you please explain why? We are allowed to quote sources within reason. At the moment, all we have to go on is your allegation that it's an infringement.

Quoting a source is fine, but linking to an infringing source is against WP:COPY. Please feel free to call in the opinion of one of Wiki's copyright people to render an opinion on this.

The problem with this source is it contains the full text of the Bertram translation. And, yes, at this point you have only my word for it. Aren't we all supposed to be given the assumption of good faith? As I have said before, If you wish, I would be happy to have someone else call all the publisher, Forham, etc. I will be happy to provide the phone numbers. If you wish, I will ask the publisher to put it on paper and fax it to you.

I am also willing to help you verify that I am who I say I am on my user page. Since copyright compliance is what I do for a living, I believe I am due the benefit of a doubt on this. You may ask user Humus_sapiens, Jayg, Slrubenstein and others who have been a part of this long-winded discussion if they think I would fabricate any of this.

And what is wrong with the Robert Michael quote? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read the Michael section of this talk page immediately abov this one. I answered this question for you. Short summary: the quotation cites the Michael article in Encounter. None of the words of the quotation are found in that article. I have a copy of it. --CTSWyneken 21:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It is you who must call in a Wikipedia copyright expert. There is a text on a website. We link to it. If it is a copyright infringement, the copyright holder must take action to have the text removed from that website, then it won't exist for us to link to. In the meantime, Wikipedia editors can't be expected to decide who is right, because we are not judges. If you can find a Wikipedia copyright expert to support your view, then of course we can reconsider it.

But WP:COPY says we are not to link to such sites. In addition, why am I not given the benefit of a doubt? --CTSWyneken 22:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The benefit of the doubt about what? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That I have a copy of the book from which the text is drawn. That the date of publication is 1971. That its copyright was renewed by act of congress. That I have called the publisher, who claims to hold the copyright to the work and does not want it posted on the internet. That I have determined that Forham is acting as an ISP and disavows responsibility for the Internet Medieval Sourcebook. That I have spent hours trying to find Dr. Paul Halsall. That WP:COPY says we shouldn't link to texts whose copyright status is questionable. --CTSWyneken 00:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the Michael quote when I have more time.

In the meantime, I must ask you to stop the constant reverting of anything you don't like, and to review WP:OWN. You have to be able to tolerate material you don't approve of, because this is a wiki. By all means argue your case on talk, but if a passage you object to stays on the page for a few days, the world will not end. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that, if I verify that a passage claims to quote an article, but does not, that I should leave it in the article? It was my understanding from WP:Verify that we were supposed to correct it. When another user, who constantly abuses others, insists on putting in one problematic passage after another, am I supposed to just ignore it, complain here and take the abuse? --CTSWyneken 22:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No, if you find a quote that isn't correct, you can remove it. Or if you find one that's not cited (which is what you're saying here), you can ask for a citation, and remove it after a reasonable period has passed. But you seem to respond to everything you don't like by reverting, or in the case of the new section I just added to Martin Luther, by putting the neutrality tag on it, even after agreeing to it on talk, just because you haven't had time to look for an opposing view from a Lutheran scholar. It's very aggressive editing, and it puts you in the wrong as far as Wikipedia rules go, even if you're right about all of the substantive issues, which you're not, in my view (although you may be right about some of them). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is cited. The passage in question claimed to be from the Michael article. It is not.

In other words, in other words, it isn't cited. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

No, there is a citation. Charitably speaking it is wrongly cited. --CTSWyneken 00:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the article history log for this and for the Martin Luther page. I do not respond this way at all. Even though I have a very hard time with the abuse heaped on me and others by user Doright, I have restored some of his quotations, worked to verify them and have said so.

Also note that I did not agree that amended text was fine. Even though you substituted it for the existing text without asking us if anyone objected, I did not revert it.

You did agree, and I asked others, and they agreed. Read the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I said:

I also would like to repeat that I do not have a problem, in general, with SlimVirgin's version, providing we add a quote from a Luther scholar who disagrees with Johnson's POV. --CTSWyneken 23:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Humus, I think we should move on. Later in the AM, unless something at work commands my attention, I'll start yet another new section on the text itself. I will start from SlimVirgin's text and add a quotation from a Luther scholar that disagrees with him. I'll ask the same question I asked of Jayg... is there anything else you'd like to see in it? While I would like this section short for reasons you know already, I'm getting tired of having to repeat all of the arguments every few weeks. --CTSWyneken 12:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Several editors support the expansion of the summary of the sub-article Martin Luther and the Jews, beginning with SlimVirgin's suggestions. Humus_Sapiens has suggested we start over, get to the text, stop arguing over each others words. In that spirit, I have extracted SlimVirgin's version and added my own suggestions to it. Is this acceptable? If not, please list what should be added from your POV. It would help if we would all focus on the text itself, not engage in personal attacks or debate each other's point of view. We should limit ourselves to what we can quote or cite from scholars in peer reviewed sources. Especially for our members that are admins, is this fair? --CTSWyneken 14:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't find an unqualified "go ahead" in here, can you? If so, I'll apologize for poor wording. --CTSWyneken 01:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! If anyone gets to substituting a Luther scholar's words for my boiler plate fields above, please feel free. My feelings will not be hurt. --CTSWyneken 15:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Out of respect for you, I did not edit it or remove it. I put the NPOV flag on because, as I said from the moment you proposed it that it was fine, providing a balancing quote was added. Since one was not, I do not agree that it is OK. I fail to understand how that is agressive editing. --CTSWyneken 00:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-aggressive editing would be to look for a Lutheran source and add a balancing quote yourself, and to leave the article alone until you'd done that, on the grounds that the existence of that section without an extra quote for a few days will not kill you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The same could be said for placing the new text on the page without the quote. --CTSWyneken 00:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Others agreed, and with respect, it is not up to you alone. Anyway, you agreed too. If you want a Luther scholar's quote, by all means add one, but you currently have a tag on an article because you have not found the time to add a quote that you want, which is a completely inappropriate use of it.

You're causing more time to be spent editing the talk pages of these articles than the articles themselves. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I will not belabor the point. I did not and will not change the text on the Martin Luther page, until I have the time away from defending myself to find it. I will then insert the quotation. I will leave the NPOV flag there until that time, for I find it tilting to one POV as is. I do not guarentee what the new user, who has challenged the text on other grounds will do. For me, the flag is a statement of fact. It is now POV. --CTSWyneken 03:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Opinion Requested

Dear Slim:

First, please forgive the tone of my posts. I have devoted quite a bit of my time to this and am a bit touchy with it.

Second, I have invited user Eloquence to take a look at the issue. He authored the WP:COPY that tells us not to link to infringing works. Is he acceptable? --CTSWyneken 22:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Now an internal link is being deleted

Could someone explain why an internal link to another article is being deleted? There's an insanity to what's going on here. Could people from now on please try to hash out their disagreements on talk before making changes? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Hasall's Scholarly Opinion, also Redaction of Michael Article

SlimVirgin, thanks for your participation here. First, it seems clear that if CTSWyneken objected to the Hasall link at Fordham University which is merely provided (though not required) for reference purposes, it in no way justifies his deletion of the quotation of Dr. Hasall's scholarly commentary (which should be included with or without the link).

Second, regarding first the repeated deletion and then CTSWyneken's editing related to Michael's work titled, "“Luther, Luther Scholars and the Jews,” I would like to point out that CTSWyneken has merely injected his point of view into the summary provided by the scholars at The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism. Compare what the Sassoon scholar writes with what CTSWyneken writes.

The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem write (note, I've already provided a link to this in theRobert Michael Summary section)

Luther scholars who defend, censor, or try to tone down his views on the Jews, ignore the murderous implications of Luther's antisemitism. Like the Nazis, Luther mythologized the Jews as completely evil: they should not be treated as humans and should be cast out of Germany. They could be saved if they converted to Christianity, but their demonic hostility to Christian society makes this inconceivable. "There was a strong parallel between Luther's ideas and feelings about Jews and Judaism and the essentially anti-Jewish Weltanschauung of most German Lutherans throughout the Holocaust."

Compare to CTSWyneken's redacted version:

Robert Michael argues that Luther scholars ignore the murderous implications of Luther's antisemitism. Michael believes that, like the Nazis, Luther mythologized the Jews as completely evil, They should not be treated as humans and should be cast out of Germany. They could be saved if they converted to Christianity, but their demonic hostility to Christian society makes this inconceivable. He believes that a strong parallel between Luther's ideas and feelings about Jews and Judaism and the essentially anti-Jewish Weltanschauung of most German Lutherans throughout the Holocaust.

Compare to my insertion here [[42]]

The first thing you may notice is that I introduce ZERO POV. I do not add nor delete a single word. Second, you may notice CTSWyneken's redaction of the criticism , Luther scholars who defend, censor, or try to tone down his views on the Jews, ignore the murderous implications of Luther's antisemitism. He thereby introduces his OWN POV. Me thinks the man doth protest too much.

Why should the scholar's words be redacted by CTSWyneken? CTSWyneken has demonstrated a unique ability to claim superior knowlege of articles that he admits never even reading (see here[[43]], so much more so now that he actually has a paper copy of an article that his knowledge is superior to mine and The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism.

Doright 01:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Three points: 1. Why should an entire paragraph be quoted? This is an encyclopedia; treat it as one. If you wish to write a position paper on the matter, with extensive quotations, then do it! The Wikipedia is not the be-all, end-all of information; it is a summary of the information known, giving a basic NPOV overview of the subject at hand, and then ought to direct the reader to sources, be they more specialized or far-ranging. Summary is necessary. Concision is a virtue. Give both of these a try; you might like them. 2. there IS POV in the quotation you champion. This does not exclude its inclusion --- the Wikipedia is certainly not about abolishing POV, but presenting issues in the most NPOV fashion possible --- but to present this quote as a simple, factual statement is ludicrous. 3. Still haven't read the article concerning appeals to authority, eh? -Rekleov 01:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright and On the Jews and Their Lies - An Outside Opinion

I've been corresponding with CTSWyneken on the question of whether the work reprinted at the Fordham University website is infringing. Rather than rehash our entire discussion, please see my talk page and his for the progress of the discussion.

In summary, IANAL but I have dealt with intellectual property issues in my work for decades, and am also familiar with the recent law changes, so I am able to follow the issues involved. I believe it has been demonstrated that Rev. Smith is correct on two key points: the internet posting is infringing and it is Wikipedia policy not to link to such infringing material.

Though I am not famed for it, brevity is the soul of wit, and you can take it from here, -- Cecropia 23:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It's also inappropriate to use translation copyright issues to impede discussion of a work which is centuries old and in the public domain. The best response would be to try to find an unencumbered English translation; the next best is to find the German text and translate the needed quotations ourselves. We are clearly entitled to use "fair use" quotations from any translation here. Let them be cited to the printed copy rather than the online one. - Nunh-huh 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe your points are in dispute. I believe the issue is to linking to the full text, which in this case is supporting infringement. -- Cecropia 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

On a related point: do you think that there is a difference between linking to the "verboten" page, and giving its url in "non-link" form? (That is, using the link that no one is trying to suppress as an example: is Highlights of Luther's "Jews and Their Lies" different from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/luther-jews.html? - Nunh-huh 00:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Nunh-Huh, Cecropia is correct. the only issue is avoiding linking to full text online versions of this particular translation. Unfortunately, Bertram's introduction indicates that the American Edition version is the first translation of On the Jews in English. The German text is available, both from me and from user drboisclair. If one or more of us wishes to work on tranlating it, I can scan from the Weimar Edition or a 19th century German edition. Both are public domain, the first being 450 years or so old, the other 150 years old. If we do not wish to do that much work, we can, of course, quote the physical edition of the work. I've been attempting to do this all along.

I don't think we should supply the link, even in text form. The problem with pointing to infringing works is that some lawyers have been, with initial success, arguing in court that providing a link contributes to infringement. Since we have the physical version, why not quote it? What do you think, Cecropia? --CTSWyneken 02:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If all we're doing is quoting with attribution, we're on firm ground of fair use: we'd be quoted limited portion as part of a critical analysis, and for palpably educational purposes only. -- Cecropia 04:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that providing a copyright-free source, either in German (public domain) or English (under GFDL), would be a most valuable contribution. (Probably fits best at Wikisource). - Nunh-huh 03:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If someone will do the work, Project Wittenberg would also be willing to post it. I'm not sure I can OCR the whole thing (I have less than fifty pages left on my free trial and our institution's resources can't afford a full copy), but I can scan the whole thing and OCR a few pages of it, if someone wants to start with translating the most critical portions of the text. --CTSWyneken 11:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If providing a clickable link is against Wikipedia policy, a text link is really the same thing, IMO. -- Cecropia 03:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that clickable vs. text doesn't provide us better legal protection, but that's really for a lawyer to say, and I suppose it's not crucial to persue, since all we need do is reference the print version. I still think it's an interesting question. - Nunh-huh 03:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're in legal jeopardy either way, but our own guidelines say we shouldn't do this. In the broader sense,given the nature of the Wikipedia project, it's probably better to go the extra mile in respecting others' intellectual property. -- Cecropia 04:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That about sums it up. --CTSWyneken 11:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Robert Michael's "Luther, Luther Scholars, and the Jews"

I'd like to revisit the issue of the paragraph inserted by an editor that claimed to be from this article.

Another user had reverted the addition of the paragraph. I decided to verify the selection, since, if it was accurate, it certainly would be acceptable in this article.

To verify the information in this selection, I had a photocopy made of the article from our library's holdings of the journal Encounter, following the citation included in the footnote to the selection. The first thing I noticed was that the pagination for the article was incorrect. The second thing I noticed was that the words in the selection were nowhere to be found in the article.

I made the assumption that the user had read the article in question and had provided a summary of it. I read the article to see if it worked as a summary. With the exception of the characterization of Luther scholars, it did manage to represent some of Dr. Michael's arguments faithfully. Even though he has a strong opinion of the attempts to explain Luther's views, he remained a gentleman throughout and focused on what he thought of the arguments and the editions of Luther's polemical writings on the Jews. I edited the text, thinking it was the editor's text, so that it was clear that the statements remaining were the opinion of Dr. Michael and removed the characterization of the scholars.

The user now tells us that he got this text from another source, an institute at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. I was unable to locate the text he says he quoted from that site, due to the search engine not connecting to its server. I will try again tomorrow.

If the text is indeed where the user says it is, I will not object to his replacing the text I edited with the one he originally contributed, providing it is cited correctly to the person who wrote the paragraph and not to Dr. Michael, for these are not his words.

If, instead, we would prefer Dr. Michael's own words, I would be happy to extract them from the article. --CTSWyneken 03:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

For Doright: As to your most recent post on Jan. 9: Which scholars? Those who tout one particular point of view, and not those who may disagree? Why does one set trump the other? This has yet to be explained. Please help. -Rekleov 21:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Rekleov, Scholars "out there" trump the POV of wikipedians "in here." Rekleov, this is from your talk page,

"... could you do me a favor and look in on the Talk page of Martin Luther and the Jews?" "It is proving very difficult, since I'm the sole Lutheran voice here at the moment." --CTSWyneken 02:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[44]

I hope this helps.Doright 00:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

On the Jews and Their Lies Merge Suggestion

With things improving on this article and with some of the debate dying down here and on the Martin Luther Article, I'd like to restart this discussion and resolve it. Here is where we stand, as far as I can see in the former section above. Please let me know if I am mistaken, or if your view has changed.

I proposed the merge, Drboisclair seconded it and Aiden thought we should merge it as well.

Jayg and Doright believe that we should keep a separate article.

Jayg argued that many other books have articles and suggested that we look at the Mein Kampf Article. I asked if he had other suggestions and he replied with the Protocols of Zion article.

Now, new discussion. I'm intrigued by these book articles and I think we could make a go of it, if we carefully distinguish between them. As it is now, there is no difference in coverage. If that has no prospect of being changed, I'm still for the merge. If we hope to develop it along the outline of other book articles, then I'd be content to keep it. --CTSWyneken 21:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

One can't help wonder why the fantastic interest in killing the On the Jews and Their Lies article that internal links to it have been repeatedly deleted and every imaginable obstacle is put in the way of its development, that more time has been spent on deletions of material from it than actual contributions to it. Here is just one example [45] Why don't you give the article a chance to be written before trying to kill it? Doright 22:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It is only logical for these articles to be merged into one. The subject is precisely the same; the article on OtJaTL could be made to fit in quite nicely into this article, and it would be one less article cluttering up the Wikipedia. While it is likely that as the Wikipedia expands we will see more and more pages set aside for individual books, this book is best fitted into this article due to its intimate relation to the subject matter. By the way, Doright, the example you link to was a fine example of POV material. Nice try. -Rekleov 00:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Report on Verification of Quote from BAS

Since this paragraph was restored to its original form, and a citation to its source provided, I verified the text. It is located in four separate databse fields at the cited record number. The paragraph is a concatenation of these four fields. The words "Dr. Michael..." were added to the beginning of the paragraph misattributing the words of it to Dr. Michael. The words, with the exception of the last field, belong to an anonymous abstractor. The last field, which has quotation marks around its text, did not have quotation marks in our paragraph. I have added words to indicate the actual source of the words, indicated with quotation marks where the text from the database begins and ends and restored the quotation marks in the last database field. I also repaired the broken link to the footnote. --CTSWyneken 00:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The user modified the paragraph in a way that obscures the fact that the majority of the paragraph are not the words of Dr. Michael, but those of an anonymous abstractor in a database entry and not in a formal paper. I support the return, for a moment, to my most recent form, as awkward as it is. If someone can find a way to clearly indicate this, I will support it. If not, it should stay this way.

I believe it would be actually preferable to quote Dr. Michael's article directly. I have the article and would be happy to do that, or content for someone else to do it. By the way, this article should be relatively easy to borrow via interlibrary loan in the United States. --CTSWyneken 10:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Formal Requests to Doright

(Pursuant to the Wikipedia policy on Dispute Resolution, the following post made to User talk:Doright is also made here, on the discussion page of an article involved:)

Doright, I'm sure you would like to be taken seriously as an editor, but in the past few days discoveries have been made in some of your edits where you have represented words as coming from someone they haven't, and where you have quoted only portions of a statement with the effect of suppressing balancing views that the original author had stated and distorting the thought. Such actions are violations of WP:NPOV. Please read that section and other policies and follow them. Please stop making personal attacks upon other editors. Please stop placing inflammatory statements in edit summaries. Please stop the use of intemperate language in your postings. Please remember that you are expected to make an article balanced, not lop-sided with any POV. Please note that if you continue to infringe upon the rules of good conduct that disciplinary actions (including being banned) may be initiated against you. That would be unfortunate, and I ask you to conduct yourself in such a way that discipline will not become necessary, and that your edits can become a useful part of Wikipedia. --StanZegel (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

StanZegel writes to CTSWyneken:

"An anonymous editor is like a sniper in a tree top, taking pot shots at those trying to do serious work on the ground, and dropping his waste matter into the work in progress. I'm not sure that anything such a person attempts to add is worth verifying but should be summarily deleted on the basis that a responsible person would identify himself. If the material is truly worthy, a responsible scholar will get around to adding it. In the present case, I believe we are dealing with a sock puppet for an editor who has been banned previously for similar activity and may be on probation right now. If so, that probation is being violated, and keeping his edits or wasting time on his "contributions" simply enables continuing violations.--StanZegel (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)"

-Doright 01:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha

and to think the leftists want him to have his own holiday, what a joke--64.12.116.201 14:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

May I say, "Huh?" --CTSWyneken 16:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Our anonymous friend is confusing Martin Luther with Martin Luther King, either intentionally or unwittingly. The holiday is already a fait accompli. - Nunh-huh 21:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Verification Report on D. G. Myers Quote

This quote comes from an H-Net email discussion group H-Antis, now called H-Antisemitism. Normally, WP:CITE discourages quotations from such sources, since they are not juried or edited. D. G. Myers, is, however, a scholar and the list is a venerable one, with the organization supplying it predating the World Wide Web.

The title of the email was in error, so I corrected it. I provided a link to table of contents page that leads to the message, the deepest practical place to link.

I also expanded the quote to include more of the context of Myer's words. --CTSWyneken 20:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing Merge Flag

Hearing no drumbeat for or against the merger proposal, I'm removing the merger tag. Let's see if we can make a go of it. --CTSWyneken 01:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Josel of Rosheim

Thanks, Humus, for the help with this section. Your additions fill it out nicely. I'll see next week if I have a public domain translation of Luther's letter to him. If so, I'll add it to Project Wittenberg and we can either expand the section a bit with direct quotes or link to it in a footnote. --CTSWyneken 11:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Great. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least at first try, it appears that this letter has never been translated. I'll ask someone to do it and post it to Project Wittenberg. --CTSWyneken 03:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)